"Context" is a concept I have recently seen used a couple of different times to justify archation. As in, you just have to understand where "they" are coming from. They aren't wrong, they just understand the context of things. Put yourself in the shoes of people who want to give themselves permission to violate the life, liberty, or property of others.
I understand "context". I also understand it is inferior to principle.
"Context" means rape is OK to those who are afraid of principle.
Everyone who seeks to justify statism of any degree is afraid of principle. They have to make a choice-- and they do make one. They choose "context"- also known as "situational ethics".
It is true that not every decision is a "right or wrong" dichotomy. There are some "maybes" out there; some gray areas. But most of those where people want to claim "context" are clearly right or wrong, and the people wanting to use "context" are wanting to feel good about doing the wrong thing. Consequences don't care how you justify your archation.
It depends on the "context"?
This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.