Hmmm... you are asking the best question of all. I was about to say `hardest', but then it occurred to me that that's not really true. Of all the people you know, wouldn't you say that most of them are a positive force in the world's life---that they do the right thing (mostly), have the right responses (mostly)? That the world would be poorer if they weren't there? And they're that way, for the most part, without having deliberately worked out a detailed blueprint for how they were going to live. I've always thought that, Lord of the Flies and other exercises in fashionable pessimism aside, most people in their local settings do quite well... something happens, though, when you scale things up. A lot of the posts on the `world's tilted axis' thread seem to reflect this sense of something that's wrong with the world on a larger scale intruding its way into ordinary daily life.
Most people are not absolute moralists, nor are they knee-jerk relativists. They live pragmatically---if they didn't, life in society wouldn't be possible. And I suspect that if you work out in detail what a pragmatic approach to social existence requires, it would look a lot like what Heretic's `contextual' approach to moral choice is.
I guess we'll just have to wait to find out till he writes his book on it! ;-)
