Fwd: Situational Ethics: Life's Guideposts ...

by David Enroth and the Rev. Dr. Dale Turner (with a comment by Revrickm)

Life is a journey filled with difficult challenges and choices. Every day we are confronted with decisions we'd rather avoid. We all want to be affirmed, loved and respected. We'd rather not be attacked, blamed, or hurt...

When I am confronted by a dilemma, I always look for guideposts for help. Prayer helps, too...

There are not two of us exactly alike. We all react differently to the influences of other people and the great array of philosophical, religious, spiritual and theological wisdom available to us. We are each our own way, you might say.

Where does your truth come?

When you are confronted by complex problems, how do you resolve your personal ethical and moral questions? ... David Enroth (= 'Sky')

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Religion / The Rev. Dale Turner
Prayer, principles can help us distinguish right from wrong

In a seminar of high-school students, a member of the group asked, "Mr. Turner, how can we really know what is right and what is wrong?"

The question reflects the perplexity many people are experiencing. Ours is a world of improved means and confused ends. Ethical decisions are not as clear-cut as they once seemed. Much that was at one time nailed down is now coming loose. Men and women who are equally conscientious live by widely different standards. Much of modern immorality is not so much badness as it is confusion over what is right and wrong. Religious leaders are against sin, but they don't always agree on what qualifies.

An ethics student at Yale University was dissatisfied with what he believed were inconclusive answers. He rose in protest: "I am sick and tired of this abstract, theoretical teaching. My head isn't abstract. It's concrete!"

Where shall we find answers?

A popular song tells us, "This can't be wrong when it feels so right." Ernest Hemingway said, "That is right which we feel good after." But such answers only add to the confusion and give no sound counsel.

How then shall we begin? Pray for guidance? Definitely. Vital, God-centered, intelligently grounded prayer can bring us wise guidance in
determining a course of action. When we bend the knee, the mutual fog is cleared, the mind is stilled and there is a poise and calm that make
intelligent decisions more likely. Proverbs 3:6 reminds us, "In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path."

There is help beyond prayer. Teachers of ethics have for many years encouraged students to ask four questions when confronted with decisions regarding conduct.

1. If everyone did what I am doing, what kind of a world would it be? This is the test of universality. It is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative or universal law: Do only that which could be done by all. It is also the test of sportsmanship. One who plays fair wants no special concessions for himself that are not valid for all.

2. Where is it likely to lead if I persist in this pattern of thought and conduct? If we pick up one end of a stick, we also pick up the other. If we choose a particular road, we determine our destination [unless we turn around or 'repent'. But]. if we persist in a certain direction, it inevitably leads to certain results.

3. Would I be willing for my conduct to be known by all? Would I object to seeing it described in print or televised? That which cannot stand sunlight is not healthful.

4. What would the person whom I admire most think of what I am doing? Would there be approval or disapproval? I remember a college classmate who greatly admired Robert E. Lee, and faced every important moral choice in his life with the question, "Would Robert E. Lee have made the choice I am about to make?"

In recent years, a new phrase has emerged that is descriptive of a decision-making philosophy. It purports to give concrete guidance in moral problems. The phrase is "situation ethics." A situation ethicist
asks, "Are the highest interests of love being served in the decision that I make and the conduct that follows?"

The situation ethicist enters into decisions aware of the teaching, traditions, customs and legalities of his community, but is prepared to transcend or disregard them if so doing better serves the higher
interests of unselfish love.

The situation ethicist faces the danger of setting himself up as a "little god," with critics saying it is better for an individual to decide by laws
prescribed by many and that have survived the test of time than to think he is in a position to know a better course of action.

Those who espouse situation ethics are quick to agree that while laws, codes and customs are not to be disregarded indiscriminately, neither must we be bound inextricably to them. They insist that situation ethics has much to commend it: It is humane. It encourages individual freedom and responsibility. It allows greater flexibility in fixing moral standards to accommodate individual differences. It is accepting and forgiving rather than rigid and condemning. It gives centrality to selfless love.

Situation ethics meets its greatest test when confronted with such issues as war, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and other perplexing
social concerns. Finding our way through a wilderness of ideas toward acceptable conduct is not an easy assignment. But, happily, there are many helpful guideposts for those who earnestly seek.

[The Rev. Dale Turner's column appears Saturdays in The Seattle Times. Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company.]

[Comment by Editor: The term "situation ethics" comes from a book of the same name, Situation Ethics, by Joseph Fletcher (an Episcopalian priest), published in 1966. The basic concept, however, dates from the 4th or 5th century, when Augustine said, "Love God and do what you will."

In his book, Fletcher described justice as 'love distributed' and I believe one could state it the other way around, also: "Love is justice applied."
The responsibility of interpreting and applying justice has always been ours, as laws and rules have been developed by society since the very beginnings of humanity. To attempt to avoid this responsibility leads to rigid fundamentalism and, in my opinion, inhumane restrictions and behavior. RM]