Situational Ethics?

[hexola]

In a discussion on another board...A conservative brought up "Situational Ethics"

I wiki'ed it...I get it.

But is this some sort of Conservative talking point or buzz word...?

Was this in one of Rush Limbaughs books...? Coulter?

The guy Im debating is like a Conservative Cartoon character...programmed by the media...he spews out stuff that sounds so regurgitated...

[electropop]

1. For the best examples of situational ethics, look at GOP behavior.

As usual, they attack in others what they can't face in themselves.

[xchrom]

2. truth is relative and ethics are situational.

what's this guys point?

[bryant69]

3. There are people who would disagree with the idea that

truth is relative and ethics are situational. I would, for that matter. The implication is that any thing can be justified by the right situation or your personal truth.

They use that arguement to suggest that liberals and secularists are inherently immoral.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[MercutioATC]

5. Not "immoral", but "situationally moral"...which isn't always a bad thing.

I think the discussion over "fixed" or "situational" ethics is much broader than can be reasonably addressed here.

[bryant69]

7. You might well be right

And life is often about deciding between two bad choices or two good choices. But if there is no standard by which to measure ones actions than how do one's actions have any meaning?

[MercutioATC]

10. Ultimately, we ar what we judge ourselves to be.

...but I fear our conversation has diverged exponentially from the OP's original intent.

On a real-world level, situational ethics (ethical decisions that diverge from a patterned norm) are not always a bad thing. That was the assertion I was attempting to make.

[The2ndWheel]

11. But if there is an arbitrary standard

set by someone else, how do your actions have any meaning? Do you have any actions of your own at all?

[bryant69]

15. Yes.

Because while there is a standard by which to compare my actions, I still choose my actions.

[The2ndWheel]

20. But only in the context of those standards

With rules, rewards and punishments, set up by someone else.

But as you said, some are good choices, some are bad choices. If we didn't have standards, everyone would do whatever they wanted. With standards, you can't always do what you want. Those standards are always changing though. Ultimately we're all just spinning endlessly around the sun, with no destination, making stuff up as we go.

[bryant69]

23. Maybe we are - but I'd rather believe the other

[The2ndWheel]

25. Some days I wish I could too

Although, there's something about the random nature of things that appeals to me. I'm not saying there isn't order that occurs naturally, but that's the thing about life. Everything co-exists with its opposite. Which if you think about it, can drive you nuts. But at the same time calm you down.

[xchrom]

9. because ''they'' argue the immorality of the left has never been

an argument i've bought.

truth IS relative whether you like it or not.

as christian as i am -- the ethics set out -- as well as the truth -- are both relative -- relative to both the winner and to what is the dominate point of view.

it's up to me become balanced and reasoning in my approach to history, philosophy, religion, etc.

what was true for those of european decent in the battle for the americas was not true for it's original inhabitants.
what i learned in those history books in school wasn't true -- but i was reading other things along side of that.

like wise religion -- i've read nietche along side the bible -- or it's expounders.

truth and ethics are found in each.

but both are better served when having a more complete view of each.

[bryant69]

14. Our understanding of truth might be relative

I wouldn't deny that. But the question is whether there exists a fundemental truth at the center or not. Or if we are chasing down our individual blind allys.

For example a slave owner whips his slave (circa 1850), believing that this is both his right and the right thing to do. If he believes that is that true for him? Is that true in general? Is there any standard one can point to?

[xchrom]

17. why do you feel the need to standardize?

we're not talking the industrialization of truth or ethics here.

if said slave owner was thomas jefferson -- the answer to your question is yes.

if that slave owner is an uneducated man -- with no notion of expanded humanity inside of him then no.
and that beating probably expemplifies a truly frightening human being.

history is replete with such creatures.

however thomas jefferson reprsents both the failure and the success of the expanded soul.

[bryant69]

18. And by what basis do you judge Thomas Jefferson?

I feel the need to understand, not standardize.

[xchrom]

26. damn it i'm off to the shrink

to be saved for another day.

[leveymg]

4. "Situational ethics" is quite different from Situationism

The former is being used here as a polemical term for opportunism. It can be applied just as easily to CIA operations to destabilize societies as to alledged Leftist immorality. In reality, "Situational ethics" posits that that love is the only absolute, and the rest is a function of socialization and historical situation. The latter is an anarchist-artists movement that flowered during the 1968 Paris uprising. There are some interesting cross-usages by intelligence agencies of both, but this isn't the time or place to go into an exegesis on that.

I think what the ill-educated goons on the Right are trying to allude to is "moral relativism", which posits that there is no absolute right or wrong.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. It's Also A Meaningless Term

No morality is not fungible based upon the relative situation. Self-defense killing, for instance, is considered, even by absolutists, to be defensible. The other person is just as dead, though. So, the only difference is the relative circumstances.

And, if there is nobody there to kill, morality has nothing to do with the decision to not kill. Hence, without the relative circumstances changing, morality doesn't even come into play. Therfore, the perjorative use of "moral relativism" is apropos of nothing.
The Professor

[Shipwack]

6. What's the context?

I mean, the Neo-cons are poster boys for the uses of situational ethics, along with some other groups in their party...

I usually hear that I'm using "situational ethics" when I try to bring nuance to an argument they have reduced to black and white...

For what little it's worth, I believe for most people (myself included) all ethics are situational, because their personal code of conduct is undeveloped beyond a few hazy rules, with the gaps being filled in by their conscience.

[ProfessorGAC]

8. It's A Meaningless Term

There is no cause to even discuss or consider ethics in a decision unless a situation presents itself to cause that decision.

So, without situations, ethics don't exist.

For instance: Killing is bad. My ethics say don't kill. A guy has a knife and he's moving toward my wife. I grab a hammer and bash him in the head. My ethics tell me that it was ok to defend my wife. If that situation comes up, there is no decision to be made. Therefore, ethics are only applicable based upon the situation.

Any other conflation of the terms is meaningless.
The Professor

[xchrom]

13. ooooh -- that was good.

[jwirr]

12. Situational ethics is a term that some churches talk about in

regards to the commandments. For instance "is it okay for a married person to cohabit with someone else if his/her spouse is too ill to participate in said marriage?" They are concerned that the situation is allowed to override the law as seen in the commandments.

When we apply this to the secular politics of the rw it is clear that *ss used situational ethics to lie in order to start a war with Iraq and is now using it to threaten Iran. Another place we see it used is in the case of Abramoff and Delay. Both used the situation as they saw it to define the law. Frist also did this with his investments problems. When *ss says he does not have to follow the law he is using situational ethics: he is at war so he has war powers.

[WCGreen]

16. It's a fancy pants way of saying the ends justify the means....

[Igel]

19. Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_ethics

Not always good, but the first couple of paragraphs seem fair. I remember the term when I was in high school in the '70s.

It boils down to a person deciding how to show love, which is subjective. If you think that it's necessary to do something to have love for your neighbor, even if it's forbidden by some law or set of laws, it's ok. While this is moderately ok in some civil cases--e.g. running a redlight if you and your family are being shot at by guys in another car--it can get silly.

From a conservative religious perspective, the problem is defining 'love'. The person in a given situation is frequently confronted by something s/he wants, and has the means to do it; the person is also in charge of deciding the act's morality. In traditional terms, religious strictures codify love and say what are proper expressions. The way the expression is frequently used the person involved is at liberty to decide. Is putting a Down's child out of his misery love? Does stealing a ring for your fiance constitute love? If stealing the ring shows contempt for the jeweller, is there a net increase or decrease in the amount of 'love'?

[Hugin]

21. Sounds like one of those 'Ann Rynd' type concepts...

or at best an Orwellian Precept.

Anyone have any chocolate coupons left?

[seabeyond]

24. the ends justify the means. the behavior of last decade of repugs

that talk about family value adn moral value. get to be unethical in order to create an ethical situation