Situation Ethics

Despite the declared theme of revisiting old blogs, I have have posted only one so far. The next posts on my list are rather lengthy and need a little bit of thought. In the meantime, I have realized this is one forum where I can express a whole thought without needing for it to come up in a natural context. Therefore, this post is about ethics and morality.

As might be guessed by the title, I have been (and continue to be) very strongly influenced by the system of situation ethics put forward by Fr. Joseph Fletcher in his book bearing the same title. There are several ways one can begin a discussion about ethics and morality. This world contains a bewildering variety of religious beliefs, even to the point that it is not unreasonable to recognize every person's particular belief system as their own religion. For the sake of simplicity, I am limiting my arguments to Christianity. This in no wise diminishes the applicability to other systems of belief, but allows me to concentrate on the important points.

Many Christians would probably ask why we need to re-examine our systems of ethics and morality. After all, don't we have the 10 Commandments and the direct guidance of Scripture? The 10 Commandments et al. are certainly good guidelines, but they cannot possibly be absolutes. For example, if you could lie to save someone's life, you probably would. Most people would agree it is acceptable to lie to prevent a murder. But if you take the Commandments as absolute, then you are left in the curious position of claiming it is sinful to do the right thing. The problem with any set of rules is that it is impossible to take into account every possible situation. Anyone who has ever dealt with bureaucracy will readily agree. I submit to you that nothing is absolutely true unless it holds in every single circumstance. Even one counterexample is sufficient to prove it is not absolute.

If no set of legalistic rules is sufficient, then on what shall we construct our ethics? Antinomianism is one possibility, but it is not generally considered an acceptable solution. Most people require some degree of reasonability. A better solution is found in utilitarianism. Typically, this is stated as "the most good for the most people." This is a dangerous ideology by itself, being vulnerable to all sorts of abuses (e.g., eugenics). The metric here is ambiguous. Correcting it, one arrives at the central statement of Situation Ethics: "The correct action in any circumstance is to increase the most agape for the most people." The Greek word agape is used here instead of the English translation, love, because of it's unique implications and the word "love" is highly overloaded. Many books have been written as to the precise meaning and implications of agape, but it suffices here to note that it is non-erotic "true love." Indeed, a better understanding of "the right thing to do" involves a better understanding of agape.

At this point, I will acknowledge this still does not give us a magic formula for doing the right thing in any particular circumstance. I like to look at it as being similar to the concept of electron correlation in Chemistry. We can describe what it is, and even construct systems of computing it. But when it comes to actually carrying out the calculations, we find that all but the very simplest systems are ludicrously intractable. In Situation Ethics, we must act in the way that increases the most agape for the most people, but this requires us to predict the future. Any honest person will admit it is humanly impossible to predict the future to such accuracy that the best thing to do is always known. Thus this ethical system in its very construction acknowledges our limitations and the complexity of reality. Rather than a set of rules to be followed, it provides a compass that unfailingly points the correct direction, if only we will read it accurately.

In most day-to-day situations, the usual rules apply. In general, one should not murder, steal, etc. But by demoting legalism to its rightful place it becomes more natural to be able to function in anomalous and stressful environments. Going back to the earlier of example of lying to save a life, it is clear that lying is the right thing to do. Some object to this extremism, however. But the example need not be extreme. What if a 5-year-old asked if you liked their drawing and you honestly thought it was the most hideous thing ever? Would you crush the child's feelings out of a perverse sense of justice? The right thing to do is to tell a white lie. Cory ten Boom's family hid Jews in their house during World War II. When the Gestapo asked if they were hiding Jews, they told the Gestapo they were! In her memoirs, ten Boom claims that Gestapo did not believe them and that the Jews were saved because she had the bravery to do the right thing. I submit to you rather that Cory ten Boom was a complete moron: God saved their lives from her idiocy. Even Jesus commanded us to be "wise as serpents and innocent as doves."

One final point to make is that in the agape calculus, you cannot neglect yourself. Self-sacrifice is not always the right thing to do.

I would have written more, but I have not yet made dinner and I am starving.