Journal Stargoat's Journal: Situational Ethics 1
I came across a subject this evening called Situational Ethics. Basically, it means that ones decisions should not be based on what is necessarily moral or ethical, but rather that with perpetuates agape. The pitfalls of Situational Ethics are obvious. Namely, who decides what best perpetuates agape. It is the duty of the man (or woman) on the spot to make the best decision based upon the ultimate creation or protection of love, rather than a predetermined set of morals or laws.
The main argument consists of situational ethics being used as a means for ignoring convention, law, and morality for the purpose of promoting individual happiness. Other arguments against situational ethics are derived from its religious background - namely that the word of God is inherently good and therefore immutable. This second argument against can be safely ignored for obvious reasons.
It's the first argument against that should attract our attention. It seems an unfortunately dim view of humanity that subscribes to the premise that ones neighbors should be feared, rather than trusted or even respected. Of course, our neighbors (and we) are fallible. Many times we have been stolen from, our reputations infringed, etc. But this argument also assumes also that human culture is stagnant. It is not. Education has created a morality in the 20th and 21st centuries unknown in any earlier time period. People are better capable of making decisions for themselves and those around them then at any point in earlier times.
(I might continue this later.)
And yet, situational ethics still yields (Score:2)
This sort of garbage [wordpress.com].
It's never safe to say, that one reality can create many moralities. Either there is one universe with or without a God, and therefore ONE right morality, or there are 7 billion worlds on the Earth that do not intersect except to cause each other harm.