Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I have found in my own life, that I need some concrete guidelines that
    I have formulated ahead of time.  This is so when I am tempted, I will
    act automatically in spite of the temtation.
    
    For instance, with a youngster age thirteen who is petite and tiny, I
    am often tempted to want to pay the child's price for her which is
    often for age 12 and under.  I know not paying the full price for her
    is stealing and even though I am tempted, I have a rule that guides my
    behavoir.  It is too easy to rationalize, she is small, she eats like a
    bird, she is only going to ski for two hours, etc.  It makes it much
    easier to have a fixed rule.
    
    On the other hand I don't believe that any rule is absolutely fixed. 
    That grey area though is the absolute exception.  If I needed to steal
    to save someone's life, even my own, I think I would steal.  If I
    needed to lie to prevent someone from hurting themself, I would lie.
    These are idealized situation.  So far, I have never had to steal
    something to save someone's life.
    
    I would break smaller rules for a greater good.  The delemma would
    always be am I really contributing to the greater good, or am I
    rationalizing my behavoir.  Therefore if there is ever a question and
    the potential outcome is not devasting, I believe we must go with the
    our rule.  More often than not, it is easier to just obey the rule.
    
    THe rules I keep are my rules.  If a law is harmful and immoral, I will
    not keep it.
    
    I am always tempted late at night when no traffic is around, to break
    traffic rules.  It is really silly sitting at a red light at midnight
    when I am the only car on the road.  On the other hand, I really don't
    want to risk getting a ticket, and it is not always worth the emotional
    effort of weighing whether it would in fact be unethical for me to
    break a senseless rule.
    
    Would these ethics be consider situational ethics?  Is that good, bad,
    or neutral?
    
                                    Patricia

>    What is situational Ethics?

my take:

"given situation X is it ethical/unethical to do Y"


examples:

- given the rise in violent crime, is it ethical/unethical to do reintroduce
  the death penalty?

- given the practical limitations of drug prohibition, is it ethical/unethical 
  to do legalise drugs?

    
is that what you'd call situational ethics?


andreas.

re .1

years ago, when shopping, i bumped in to my neighbour - a born again 
christian. at the till he was given too much change, he only noticed
this in the parking lot. 
"i have to go back, she's given me too much change", he says. 
"be happy! you just made money!" i say.
"no, she'll have to come up for the difference" and he brings the money
back.
i really thought then, the guy was nuts.

boy, thinking about this little event later on, did he spoil my childish 
fun at being given too much change thereonafter.
of course, i never considered that the cashier may have to make up for 
the difference.

so my advice to life's little ethical dilemmas: 
"if it's going to work on your mind, don't do it"


andreas.

    	The problem with situational ethics is that it can lead to
    	the ideology of, "If it's right for me, it's right."
    
    	Keeping extra change cheating on one's taxes and using undeserved 
    	discounts grows into calling in to work sick when you want a day 
    	to drive to the mountains, for example.  It might grow to things
    	like welfare scams, political corruption, and extortion.  Personally 
    	I see the entire abortion debate as a matter of situational ethics, 
    	though I know that many will disagree with that.  (I see that 
    	disagreement as a matter of situational ethics too!)  I see the 
    	acceptance of homosexual behavior as a matter of situational ethics.  
    	Same with any out-of-wedlock sexual behavior.

re Note 1043.2 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER:

> "given situation X is it ethical/unethical to do Y"
> 
> 
> examples:
> 
> - given the rise in violent crime, is it ethical/unethical to do reintroduce
>   the death penalty?
> 
> - given the practical limitations of drug prohibition, is it ethical/unethical 
>   to do legalise drugs?
> 
>     
> is that what you'd call situational ethics?
  
        That's is what one would think "situational ethics" would
        mean, but the term "situational ethics", when used by
        conservatives, at least, seems to mean "if it feels good, do
        it."

        There's hardly anything, even for fundamentalist Christians,
        that is *always* wrong.  (For example, the morality of
        killing another human being, for most people, depends upon
        the situation.)  Almost all moral code, and laws, are
        expressed in terms equivalent "to do this in this situation
        is wrong".

        Bob

>        There's hardly anything, even for fundamentalist Christians,
>        that is *always* wrong.  (For example, the morality of
>        killing another human being, for most people, depends upon
>        the situation.)  
    
    	Many of today's hot moral issues take the extreme situations
    	(like you just described) and try to apply it to more and more
    	general cases.  Abortion is a prime example of that.

.6 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

How is does abortion fit into this (situational ethics)? (I can tell you're just
dying for someone to ask). 

Steve

    	"I can abort this baby because it doesn't have a chance for a
    	quality life..."

    Does this type of ethics include things gone by?  There is at least on
    incident in my memory that I am still not sure what I should have/could
    have done.  I do know I've never been happy with what I did do.
    
    I saw a man stike the woman he was with.  This happened in a
    supermarket.  They were debating the price of some item.  He slapped
    her across the face, called her a vulgar name, and insisted that they
    make the purchase his way.  She didn't really react at all.  After I
    picked my chin up off the floor I walked by thinking that I didn't want
    to make things worse for her by staring.  I rejected the idea of saying
    something for fear of making things worse for her.  I will always
    wonder if I should have spoken to the store manager, or scribbled a
    note and passed it to her, or something.  As it is, I did nothing but
    gape.

        re .8 

    ...or "Thou shall not kill, unless you catch the thief in the act."

    	.-1
    
    	Sorry.  I don't understand.

re .5

since i was unfamiliar with the term "situational ethics" i checked my two
english language philosophy dictionaries. the term, s.e., doesn't exist per se.
however, based on the philosophical definition of ethics i would offer the 
following working definition of situational ethics - "agreement between all 
members (of group, community, society) on what is acceptable/unacceptable
in a given situation".

with this definition, there is no limitation on which subjects can be covered.
so, "abortion", "death penalty", "genetic engineering" and much more can all 
fall into the domain of situational ethics. the crux of course is, as with 
ethics, how does the "agreement" on what is acceptable happen - by majority 
vote or unanimously, or is it even delegated to the individual (as for abortion
in countries where abortion is legal). 
as regards ethics commissions of the legislative, i would think agreement is 
mostly by majority.

of course the day to day use of ethics is "what is acceptable/unacceptable for
ME" - hence i can see what the meaning of situational ethics would be as used
colloqually (sp?).


andreas.

    It is interesting that the expression "situational ethics" is used all
    the time and there is no clear definition of what it means?
    
    
                                 Patricia

re Note 1043.13 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     It is interesting that the expression "situational ethics" is used all
>     the time and there is no clear definition of what it means?
  
        Some words seem to devolve to pure connotation:  "situational
        ethics" is almost always used these days by people who want
        to make a pejorative statement about some other person's or
        group's ethics.

        Who cares why the word "situational" is used?  It just means
        "bad" when used in front of ethics.  It's just another part
        of Conservative PC.

        Bob

	.14
      
>        Some words seem to devolve to pure connotation: 
    
    	There are many words and phrases commonly used today that
    	would fit this model.  You used two yourself -- with a very
    	interesting justapositioning -- conservative and PC.
    
    	Others:  (in no particular order)
    
    	Liberal, right-wing, left-wing, family values, fundamentalist,
    	feminist, thumper.

    Well then, let's start here within this community of faith to define
    the words we use and make rational comments in relationship to well
    defined concepts.
    
    What is situational ethics and is it good or bad?
    
                                 Patricia

    I see three different answers given.
    
    1.  Situational Ethics is putting laws into practice based on concrete
    situatons.  i.e. higher violent crimes::reintroduce death penalty.
    
    2.  Situational Ethics means the Ethics of an action can change
    depending on the circumstance.  i.e. Killing is wrong::killing to
    protect yourself from being killed is OK.
    
    3.  Situational Ethics means a person defines his/her ethics purely on
    his/her selfish self interest.
    
    
    
    I agree with the second definition.  I believe that we absolutely need
    a higher standard, but the standard needs to be rigid, but less than
    absolute.
    
    The first seems to have more to do with laws than ethics.  I don't
    believe ethics can be legislated.  They are either individual or part
    of a voluntary association such as a Faith Community.
    
    The third seems to me to be a lack of ethics.  One is not guiding one's
    action by a higher set of ethics but doing what produces the best
    material benefits.

>    The third seems to me to be a lack of ethics.  One is not guiding one's
>    action by a higher set of ethics but doing what produces the best
>    material benefits.
    
    	Unfortunately too many people disguise their lack of ethics
    	by calling it "situational ethics".
    
    	Sorry, I see little chance of consensus in defining the term.

The issue of defining and discussing Situational Ethics implies similar
issues with Absolute Morality.

It would seem that whatever we think about these two terms, they are
mutually exclusive.

TTom

Re: .17

FWIW, I agree with your second definition, Patricia - that's the way I
usually heard the term "situational ethics" used in the past.

				-- Bob

Here is a situational ethics scenario I ran across a few years back:

You're the emergency medical decision-maker on duty.  You have two critically
injured patients, both requiring plasma.  You only have enough plasma on hand
to save the life of one of the two patients.  You cannot get more plasma in
time to save both lives.  If you try to split the plasma, you'll lose both
patients.

Both patients are adults.  Both are unconscious.  One is the mother of three.
The other is a man and a known alcoholic.

What do you do?

There are no tricks, no secret way out.

Shalom,
Richard

Give it to the mother, unless she is Adolph Hitler.

/Mike

Re: .21 Richard

Similar situations: a mother in a concentration camp is forced to choose
between telling the Nazis to kill her daughter or kill her son (otherwise
they will kill both of them).  Or a captain on an overcrowded lifeboat
must decide which passengers to throw overboard (otherwise the lifeboat
will sink, killing everyone).

In a way, just posing moral dilemmas like these is an emotional assault on
the listener.  I had a knot in my stomach after reading your .21, and also
after watching the movies whose plots I described in the previous
paragraph.

What we need to remember is that these kinds of situations are
exceptional, and explore the unmarked territory at the edges of our
ethical "maps".  The doctor who chooses to save the mother with everything
to live for instead of the alcoholic man isn't saying that alcoholics in
general deserve death; he's merely making a choice between two horrible
alternatives.  I think there's a danger in applying the logic of this
choice to a completely different situation and saying, for example, that
a national health care plan should save money by refusing to provide
medical care to alcoholics.

				-- Bob

    .22  That would be the inclination of most, I think, Mike.
    
    .23  Agreed, Bob.  These are gut-wrenching situations.  And
    fortunately, as you pointed out, they're not the kind we encounter
    regularly.
    
    There's a lot we don't know about in the scenario in .21.  Is the
    woman an abusive mother?  Might the alcoholic enter into recovery
    and go on to make some enormous contribution to humankind?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Actually I believe that this kind of scenario pops up more often than you might
think.

With today's medical technology, organ transplants are becoming more and more
common, but there are frequently not enough to 'go around'. So the situation
becomes, if a person has destroyed their own liver through drinking, should they
be eligible for a new one? This assumes that they would be depriving someone
else (who might be suffering from disease) of life.

Today (and always) the choice seems to rest more on money, power and influence
than who is more deserving. (I have heard of several cases where a wealthy
alcoholic has gotten the transplant).

These are tough issues with no easy answers.

Steve

re .14

;        Some words seem to devolve to pure connotation:  "situational
;        ethics" is almost always used these days by people who want
;        to make a pejorative statement about some other person's or
;        group's ethics.

 Bob,

 The same was true in Jesus' day, the Pharisees and Sadducees were
 always trying to catch Jesus out. One example is documented in
 Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus was always alert to their schemes and
 would give an outstanding answer. Jesus was a wonderful teacher
 and a good example to all. But one should not be disheartened
 if one cannot give a good answer when confronted by someone
 who is trying to trip one up, repeating the principle from
 God's word should suffice.

;        Who cares why the word "situational" is used?  It just means
;        "bad" when used in front of ethics.  It's just another part
;        of Conservative PC.

 I disagree, "situational ethics" can be used for good (and I see in
 your previous paragraph that you don't think that it is always used
 in a bad way but seemingly so). For example, parents can instill sound 
 principles in their children to help them confront situations at school 
 involving such things as drugs, smoking, drinking etc. I know that when 
 I was young that I started smoking at 10 years of age through peer pressure. 
 My parents had told me that it was wrong to smoke but not what to do when 
 confronted by peer pressure. Parents and child could act through certain 
 scenarios so that child will not be taken by surprise at a later date. 
 Today children face increasing pressures at school at a very early age, 
 would it not be loving of their parents to help prepare them for the 
 problems they might face?.

 Situtional ethics can be good if used to help others to make a stand
 for principles that they themselves belief in. But one would not
 want to imitate the example of the Pharisees or the Sadducees in
 wanting to trip people up as it were.


 Phil.

    
    There are only six major ethical systems, each designated by its answer
    to the question, Are there any objective ethical laws?  That is, are
    any moral laws not purely subjective but binding on humans in general?
    
    In answer, antinomianism says there are no moral laws.  Situationism
    affirms there is one absolute law.  Generalism claims there are some
    general laws but no absolute ones.  Unqualified absolutism believes in
    many absolute laws that never conflict.  Conflicting absolutism
    contends there are many absolute norms that sometimes conflict, and we
    are obligated to do the lesser evil.  Graded absolutism holds that many
    absolute laws sometimes conflict and we are responsible for obeying the
    higher law.
    
    An example of situationism would be demonstrated in the answer to the
    question, Is it ever right to lie to save a life?  Situationism would
    say Lying is sometimes right: There is only one universal law. 
    Situationism claims that there is only one absolute moral law, and
    telling the truth is not it.  Love is the only absolute, and lying may
    be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving
    thing to do.  Hence, lying is sometimes right.  Indeed, any moral rule
    except love can and should be broken for love's sake.  Everything else
    is relative; only one thing is absolute.  Thus the situationist
    believes lying to save lives is morally justified.
    
    Quoted from "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues", by Norman L.
    Geisler
    
    jeff