How might a constructivist account of the origins of personal views help conflict resolution? In this paper I consider ideas suggested by Maturana’s epistemology and associated ethical comments. Maturana’s approach to thinking (and feeling) at the individual level begins with observation then we describe and explain what we observe. The explanations may or may not take account of the processes by which they are created. Might it be possible to examine how to implement process oriented examination as a personal ethical procedure? At the next interpersonal level Maturana introduces the concept of the legitimate other as a basis for ethical discussions. Moving to the level of society, Maturana based his vision of ethics on early human social groups where people were interdependent socially and biologically. Relevance: Understanding ethical differences seems crucial to tolerance which helps co-operation at a human level. This paper is about how constructivism has a strong hidden ethical message.

Key words: Ethics, radical constructivism, Maturana, legitimate other, matristic societies.

Context: Maturana’s views on cognitive processes and explaining have ethical implications. The aim of this paper is to link ethics and epistemology to facilitate thinking about how to promote respect between different viewpoints through mutual understanding. Method: Maturana’s views on ethics are outlined in three domains: the personal, the interpersonal, and the societal. Results: The ethical implications that emerge around the notion of reality with or without parenthesis, the concept of the legitimate other, and Maturana’s conjectures about the origins of human social groups. Social groups in which cooperation is more important than competition are based on love in the sense that others are accepted as legitimate members of the community. An epistemology that responds to the biological origins of human cognition is one that is more open to cooperation, honesty, responsibility, and respect than an epistemology that takes reality as given and the task of human cognition to represent truth. Implications: This framework for thinking about cognitive processes provides a way of approaching disagreements so they become opportunities for discussion rather than for power assertion of one reality over another. In a world where strongly held viewpoints on ethics and reality lead to conflict, promoting viable models of cognitive process that link cognition and ethics may lead to insights that promote tolerance. Ideas from attribution theory in social psychology are presented as a means of facilitating the emergence of the concept of the legitimate other in discussion about disagreements.

Key words: ethics, constructivist epistemology, legitimate other, reality in parenthesis