Situational Ethics Revisited

Years ago, I read a book by well known ethicist Joseph Fletcher, entitled "Situation Ethics" (or is it "Situational Ethics"? I don't remember). In it, he suggests that ethics systems can and will be influenced by their sitaution. To simplify, your ethics system will adjust depending on circumstances. What you may do in one instance, you may not do in another. In essence, any moral response is contingent on environmental factors.

At the time of the reading, I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. I guess at the time, as a new Christian, I had an idealized version of how things can and should be. I thought it ridiculous that an ethics system can have, as its foundation, a worldview that does not show tangible consistency. It was, in my view at the time, a flawed system, one which really turns decisions into a truly subjective exercise and is devoid of any consistent belief system. Ultimately, I saw it cross with my theological understanding which espouses moral and ethical absolutes.

Fast forward to 2008, and my viewpoint hasn't changed...much. I still think an ethics system that can be easily swayed can show a lack of moral integrity and personal conviction in the adherent. I mean, essentially, this relegates ethical dilemmas to the realm of fashion, where one week something is "in" and the next week it is "out". Plus, moreover, I'm not entirely sure that having an ever-changing ethic system is in line with Scriptural principles. I know, I am over-simplifying, but hopefully you see my point, even a little bit.

Here's where I started to break away from my previous hard-wired stance on this topic. I think there is some truth to the old adage, "unless you have been in someone's shoes..." What really prompted me to look into this further was an article I read in the newspaper a while back, about a guy who lost his job and in trying to make ends meet for his kids, he decided to start robbing banks. Not sure if it was an armed robbery or the traditional "stick 'em up" types, complete with pantyhose on the head and a Brooklyn accent. Regardless, when I first read this, my first emotional response was that I felt sorry for this guy - not sorry as in patronizing sorry, but sorry in terms of empathetic sorry. Then I thought, "should I be feeling this way?" I mean, there are many people down on their luck who don't resort to robbing banks. Do I think this guy is a bad guy? I don't know - I would have thought that he was a scumbag 15 years ago, but now I am a father of two and I put myself in that position. What would I do? I can tell you that I don't think that I would not rob a bank, but would I be tempted to perhaps do other things which may not be so extreme in terms of criminality? Would I break away from my long-held conviction and practice of not offering cash to a merchant to save on tax? I don't know. Would I not report all my side income? I don't know. It's hard to say. Now, here's the rub: is any of this right? My response would be, "probably not."

Why the change in heart, as minor as it may be? Well, I think I am starting to look at things from a more wider spectrum. That is, I try not do judge a word or action in a vacuum. So in the wider scheme of things, I consider the following: why is the person doing or saying what he/she is doing or saying? In other words, I examine motive, something which I dismissed before. I think it is a factor in play. Now, here's where I can speak definitively for myself. Some actions or behaviour in nature, is inherently wrong. For instance, lying is wrong. However, would you fault a person who lies to a criminal in order to save the life of their family? Probably not. I wouldn't think twice. Does that mean that I demonstrated a coveted virtue? Probably not, but consider the following example in the Bible: Rahab deliberately lies in order to save the Israelites. Nowhere do I see that action condemned in the Bible - in fact, isn't Rahab mentioned in the Hebrews 11 "Hall of Fame" of the faith? Does that make lying OK? Of course not, but it certainly doesn't make it a cut and dry issue as I thought it once was.

Do I believe in white lies? No. I don't believe there are such a thing as an innocent lie. Now, this is based on my understanding of what sin is, and while I have never really read a truly good explanation of what sin is (usually, people will outline the effects or outcroppings of sin, not sin itself), I think that in reading the Bible all these years, I have come up with a fairly concise explanation: sin is separation from God, sure, but I would classify sin as any instance, whether in thought or speech or deed, where one puts the focus on themselves rather than God. Guess you can say it is driven out of selfish motive. That definition, I think, works given the fact that if you look at any sin, there is a commonality in the preservation or satisfaction of self. Look at lust, look at covetousness, look at lying, look at idolatry, murder, stealing, etc.

However, where I think motive comes into play is in an action which may historically have a self-driven motive, but in the situational cases they do not. A parent who has decided that without the ability to procure the proper legal means to pay for food for their kids, decides to do a Robin Hood approach (and even then, how many people have historically vilified Robin Hood?) and steal from the rich. The intention is not self-focussed. The action is still wrong, but are there degrees of wrong now?

I know, this is a slippery slope argument. In the above example, can you say that the stealing was justified if there were other means or avenues of options available that the individual just was not aware of? And what is considered a need compared to a want - there's a fine line sometimes. What if the parental thief goes from stealing food to stealing clothes and then starts to differentiate between basic clothes and brand name clothes. Is it the same thing to judge a person who steals bread and milk to feed their kids, as opposed to a parent who steals lobster and filet mignon?

(STOPPING THIS POST IN ORDER TO WATCH PALIN/BIDEN DEBATE...WILL RESUME LATER)