Talk:Ethical relationship

Lemma
Kohlberg's Just Community approach deserves its own lemma, I think. Generally, I feel that pedagogical issues are underpresented in Wikipedia as in the entire Internet. Maybe this is a gender issue, I dunno.

Suggestions for improvement
This article requires some heavy editing to achieve some kind of balance and a degree encylopedia-ness (or whatever the word is ). We have a two-sentence lead to introduce the topic, we have a further two-sentences under the heading Basics that seems to say that relationships are central to Queer theory, then we have two whole screens of Contrasting Theories. What about a proper explanation of what an Ethical Relationship actually is? At the moment we have the un-sourced claim that people who employ the term study the relationship between mother and child, but they haven't actually said that the mother-child relationship is ethical, by definition, can be ethical, is ethical sometimes under certain circumstances, is mostly ethical most often, or what. All they said is that people who use the term ethical relationship study the mother child relationship. For example, some people who use the term Major Key study music. Does that tell you anything at all about what a mjor key is, or what music is? Clearly Not. Some suggestions for improvement:
 * Definition - an actual definition of what the term means. What are the consequences of being in an ethical relationship, how do I recognise one when I'm in it, how do I work towards achieving one, and so on.
 * History - who was the first person to use the term, in what context and what did they mean by it. Have later users modified the use or meaning of the term. Have any major thinkers used the term, either to agree or disagree with the concept (whatever it might be), and if the meaning has evolved what does the term mean now?
 * Examples of the benefits (if any) of being in an ethical relationship or the consequences (if any) of a relationship not being ethical.
 * Read sentences with pronouns and consider whether an average reader coming to this topic anew could reasonably be expected to figure out the antecedent. Readng an encyclopedia is not meant to be as simple as reading a comic book but unprecursed pronouns are not an effective way to convey information. For example, "Thus they focus on unequal power and such matters as sexual honesty, marital, commitment, child-raising, and responsibility..." Does the pronoun they here refer to, "theories of ethics that derive from dispute resolution" or, "the meta-ethics as defined in Western moral philosophy" or, "ethical traditions emphasizing abstract moral codes" or, "ethical relationship theories"? All of these are legitimate antecedents of they in the quoted sentence. And, finally, please don't answer my question here, edit the article to improve it.  Cottonshirt  τ   08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)