Contact is not all or nothing, so the question admits of degrees

The argument

A second argument for this position concerns the shape of the choice. Proponents hold that the question is usually put as though there were two options, continuing as before or cutting the person off entirely, and that almost nobody's actual conduct looks like either. The real repertoire is wide: seeing the person only at large gatherings, only with others present, only away from one's children, only by telephone, only for as long as a conversation stays civil, or on a stated condition about what will not be said in one's hearing. Each of these is a maintained relationship, each imposes a cost, and they differ enormously in what they ask of everyone involved. Once the choice is described properly, proponents argue, the general answers lose much of their force. The claim that contact communicates acceptance is strongest against unchanged contact and much weaker against a relationship visibly reduced for a stated reason, which communicates something close to the opposite. The claim that presence is required for influence is strongest where contact is real and attentive, and gives no support to attendance nobody is paying attention to. Both, on this account, are arguments about particular points on a scale rather than about whether to be on the scale at all. Proponents conclude that the useful question is not whether to maintain the relationship but on what terms, and that this is a question only the people involved can answer. They hold that this is why the honest response is that it depends: not because the moral issue is unclear, but because the available responses are many and the right one is a matter of fit between the conduct, the family and the people most affected by it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that a graduated relationship is often the worst of the options rather than a solution. It supplies the appearance of a stand without its effect, lets everyone involved believe something has been done, and tends to drift back towards the original arrangement once the immediate occasion has passed. They also argue that the account overstates how legible the middle range is: a relative who notices that he is now seen only in company does not generally conclude that he was wrong, but that his family has become difficult. On this objection the terms do not communicate what the position assumes they do.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics hold that the middle range exists but tends to drift back towards the original arrangement, so the choice is less open than described. [Rejecting P2] A reduced relationship supplies the appearance of a stand without its effect and lets everyone involved believe something has been done. [Rejecting P3] The general arguments are not confined to the extremes, since the charge that warmth communicates acceptance applies to reduced contact as well. [Rejecting C] If the terms do not communicate what the position assumes, moving from whether to on what terms does not dissolve the general question.