Why can it be looked at in part?The whole constitutes the relative morality of the situation. If I my perception of the situation is different from yours, and you are the initiator, my perception is as relevant as yours to the morality of the situation. I am part of the scenario and am part of the context. This cannot be separated out.
Not in the act in and of itself. It's like looking at an individual strand of hair--the strand of hair is not the "hair-do," although it is always part of the hair-do (sorry lame analogy).No, the receiver also has a hand in the context.
Not in context, no, but in its intention, it is. Further, there is agreement as to what "mean" is universally in that it is "not good." The social context is a construct. The construct is important to interaction and intention, but the act itself is not dependant upon it when evaluating whether or not there is an objective/absolute that is a standard by which individual acts can be measured in isolation of actual context.If you are being mean, but I do not perceive it that way, the message is NOT universally mean.
This is called meta-ethical analysis.Both parts, and the third, the situation, have a part in the relative morality of the act.
We're talking about the same thing, but focusing on different aspects. The "continuum" you mentioned is the objective/absolute standard, but the action in social context is the meta-ethical analysis which is relative to the circumstances.