Situational Ethics

Down in politics Rob has spent some time denying that he engages in situational ethics.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=776236&poll_id=&news_id=

To Rob, David and many other people, the mere thought that situational context matters when making an ethical determination is equated with moral weakness and more importantly, situational ethics are seen as the denial of a divine and immutable ethical authority. That's really the crux for many folks: how can context matter in ethics, if we accept a Divinely ordained black and white distinction between right and wrong?

Nonetheless, consider one of God's most important commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

On its face, this is not an ambiguous statement. No exceptions are included. Even so, ethicists from the dawn of time have noted situational exceptions to the above commandment; self defense is a good example.

The self-defense exception is so universally accepted that those who deny that they engage in situational ethics will simply ignore the situational context of self defense and illogically claim that they are not being situational at all!

A self-defense exception is not what the Commandment says though.

Jim

Jim Brown said:

Down in politics Rob has spent some time denying that he engages in situational ethics.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=776236&poll_id=&news_id=

To Rob, David and many other people, the mere thought that situational context matters when making an ethical determination is equated with moral weakness and more importantly, situational ethics are seen as the denial of a divine and immutable ethical authority. That's really the crux for many folks: how can context matter in ethics, if we accept a Divinely ordained black and white distinction between right and wrong?

Nonetheless, consider one of God's most important commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

On its face, this is not an ambiguous statement. No exceptions are included. Even so, ethicists from the dawn of time have noted situational exceptions to the above commandment; self defense is a good example.

The self-defense exception is so universally accepted that those who deny that they engage in situational ethics will simply ignore the situational context of self defense and illogically claim that they are not being situational at all!

A self-defense exception is not what the Commandment says though.

Jim

Hardly my area of expertise, but I have been assured by people who consider it to be theirs that the correct translation is more like "Thou Shalt Not Murder" -- whatever that means. Thou Shalt Not Kill -- except when it's OK? And then, of course, you get St. Augustine tying himself in knots trying to explain why waging war is OK. Of course ethics are situational. The problem is that two different people may see the same situation differently -- different sides of the same issue. They may even both be absolutely sure that God is on their side. Hard as we may try, life just ain't that simple. Differences need to be worked out. Thinking in black-and-white absolutes makes that pretty much impossible. The results are all too obvious.

Jim Brown said:

Down in politics Rob has spent some time denying that he engages in situational ethics.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=776236&poll_id=&news_id=

To Rob, David and many other people, the mere thought that situational context matters when making an ethical determination is equated with moral weakness and more importantly, situational ethics are seen as the denial of a divine and immutable ethical authority. That's really the crux for many folks: how can context matter in ethics, if we accept a Divinely ordained black and white distinction between right and wrong?

Nonetheless, consider one of God's most important commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

On its face, this is not an ambiguous statement. No exceptions are included. Even so, ethicists from the dawn of time have noted situational exceptions to the above commandment; self defense is a good example.

The self-defense exception is so universally accepted that those who deny that they engage in situational ethics will simply ignore the situational context of self defense and illogically claim that they are not being situational at all!

A self-defense exception is not what the Commandment says though.

Jim

Who's trying to keep the law? You? Sorry bro but you fail..everyone fails at that task.

Christ himself is the fulfillment of the law...my trust is in Him alone..so your argument is quite moot.

Jim Brown said:

Down in politics Rob has spent some time denying that he engages in situational ethics.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=776236&poll_id=&news_id=

To Rob, David and many other people, the mere thought that situational context matters when making an ethical determination is equated with moral weakness and more importantly, situational ethics are seen as the denial of a divine and immutable ethical authority. That's really the crux for many folks: how can context matter in ethics, if we accept a Divinely ordained black and white distinction between right and wrong?

Nonetheless, consider one of God's most important commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

On its face, this is not an ambiguous statement. No exceptions are included. Even so, ethicists from the dawn of time have noted situational exceptions to the above commandment; self defense is a good example.

The self-defense exception is so universally accepted that those who deny that they engage in situational ethics will simply ignore the situational context of self defense and illogically claim that they are not being situational at all!

A self-defense exception is not what the Commandment says though.

Jim

My problem with this analysis and line of thinking is that it tries to equate dissimilar acts as somehow the same act under different conditions, which is not correct IMO. Self-defense, as an example, is not actually an accepted form of murder. They are completely different and unrelated acts. Self-defense is a unique act that has nothing to do at all with murder and the two are not tied together in any way. They are not the same thing and should not even share the same word. In other words, it would be false to tell a victim, "you murdered that guy attacking you, but it's ok under the circumstances." The truthful way to say that is "you defended your life against an attacker and the attacker died as a result of defending yourself" , which is more than just a semantical difference.

Giving false information to an enemy during a war is not an act of lying, it is an act of war.

Understand your point...and agree. People show situational ethics all the time. In your example with that commandment, a better situation would probably be the death penalty, or state sanctioned murder. If you don't exercise your right to protest against it, or if you don't vote against it, then you are supporting murder IMO. More controversial but still to the same point, abortion and euthanasia.

As a reminder...

MATTHEW 5:21-24 " You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' "But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."

IMO situational ethics will always be seen, even from the most devout of any religion or philosophy. Why? Sin.

Jim Brown said:
Nonetheless, consider one of God's most important commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

On its face, this is not an ambiguous statement. No exceptions are included. Jim

I'm a bit late on this thread, and I havn't read the entire thread, but the Commandment you quoted has a bit of a mis-translation. A more accurate translation of the ancient Hebrew would be "tear apart the innocent," rather than simply "kill". Since someone trying to kill you is not really acting innocently, the Sixth Commandment would not be applicable. Would there be any example that killing the innocent should be allowed because of a "situational ethic?" I would think that the very definition of the innocent IS the very reason they should not be torn apart, regardless of the "situation".

David E