The cost of the relationship falls on the people the contempt is aimed at

The argument

The second argument for this position shifts attention from the person holding the view to the people affected by it. Proponents observe that a family is not a single relationship but a network, and that a relative kept inside it is kept inside it for everyone. A partner, a child, a relative by marriage or a close friend who belongs to the group being disparaged does not get to attend a different gathering. Their choice is between absenting themselves from their own family and sitting at a table with someone who regards them as lesser, in the company of relatives who have decided that this is tolerable. On this account the decision to maintain the relationship is not the private matter it is usually presented as. It allocates a cost, and it allocates it to the people least responsible for the situation and least able to object without being told they are making a scene. Proponents hold that the reasons usually offered for maintaining contact, such as the hope of eventual change or the importance of not losing a parent, all weigh in favour of the person who holds the view and against those who bear its effects, and that they are generally advanced by relatives who bear none of those effects themselves. The position concludes that the question of what is owed has been asked about the wrong person. The obligation that matters runs to those who would have to share a room with him, and discharging it means declining to keep the relationship in place on terms they have not agreed to. Proponents accept that this may cost the family a good deal, and hold that the cost belongs to the person whose conduct created it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics accept the importance of the affected relatives and draw a different conclusion: that the decision belongs to them rather than to a general rule. Some ask that contact be maintained, for reasons of their own, and a position that overrides them has substituted a principle for the judgement of the people it claims to protect. Critics also argue that the practical effect of exclusion is often to split a family into camps, which can leave the affected relative cut off from relatives they wanted to keep. On this reply the obligation identified is real but is discharged by asking, and by following the answer, rather than by a rule applied in advance.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics hold that relatives manage networks all the time by seeing people separately, so inclusion need not be total. [Rejecting P2] The choice is not always the one described, since affected relatives sometimes ask for contact to continue for reasons of their own. [Rejecting P3] A rule that overrides those relatives substitutes a principle for the judgement of the people it claims to protect. [Rejecting C] The obligation identified is discharged by asking the affected relatives and following their answer rather than by a rule applied in advance.