Situational Ethics examples

mattskramer said:
Nope. I'm afraid that you would need to make your statement less abstract and more concrete. Could you explain your point in a more simple way or provide examples.



Nope. You are not my master. Practically no person or abstract idea is my master. Yet, I will reply anyway. One man's honey is another man's vinegar. How do you justify the "inordinate" amount of time you spend trying to support the notion of moral absolutes? I merely choose to spend some time in this "room".
****************Why**************

all ya do is throw out silly hypotheticals...not alot of room to debate...IMO :poke:
 
mattskramer said:
Nope. I'm afraid that you would need to make your statement less abstract and more concrete. Could you explain your point in a more simple way or provide examples.



Nope. You are not my master. Practically no person or abstract idea is my master. Yet, I will reply anyway. One man's honey is another man's vinegar. How do you justify the "inordinate" amount of time you spend trying to support the notion of moral absolutes? I merely choose to spend some time in this "room".

People can work together if they're not suspicious of each other. WHat about not stealing other's stuff and not screwing people's wives is too abstract for you?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
People can work together if they're not suspicious of each other. WHat about not stealing other's stuff and not screwing people's wives is too abstract for you?

Uh. Yeah. People can work together if they're not suspicious of each other. They can also work together if they are suspicious of each other. They can lock their cars and their homes. They can sign contracts. I’m sorry but I just don’t see what your comment has to do with my argument that there are very few, if any, absolutes.

What about not stealing other's stuff and not screwing people's wives is too abstract for you?

That is not too abstract. “Thou shall not steal” is often thought of as an absolute. But consider this story. A poor but good laborer lives in a town that has no private charity and no welfare system. He barely earns enough to support himself and his good but ailing wife. This couple learns that the wife has a severe, increasingly painful, and almost terminal disease. A pharmacist has developed a drug that will instantly cure her but he demands far more than the laboring husband will be able to give for the drug. Without the drug, the wife will die within days. The husband is without help. The pharmacist’s wealth would not be severely damaged if he were to lose some of the drug that he created. Yet, the pharmacist would not accept any type of loan or other compensation except cash. If you were the poor laborer, would you steal / shoplift the drug – or would you let your wife die a painful and agonizing death within the next few days? This is the only choice available.
 
mattskramer said:
A German mother was committed to a Russian concentration camp. Pregnant women were considered a liability and were released. This mother found a friendly guard who sympathized with her situation and willingly impregnated her. She was released and returned to her home and raised the child as part of her reunited family. Her adultery was justified since it served to reunite her with her children and family who needed her. Doesn't the bible say that adultery is wrong?

mattskramer said:
A young mother working as a spy for the US was asked to use her sexuality to ensnare a rival spy. When she protested that she could not put her personal integrity on the line by offering sex for hire, she was told: "It’s like your brother risking his life and limb in the war to serve his country. There is no other way." For the greater good of her country, it was the loving thing to do. Yet, prostitution is always wrong - isn't it?

mattskramer said:
Is suicide always wrong? Does the Bible say that it is wrong to kill yourself? Then consider the following: If a man has only two choices of taking an expensive medication which will deplete his family’s finances and cause his insurance to lapse, or else refusing the medicine and living only 3 months, it is the loving thing to do to refuse the medicine and spare his family. And, non-theoretically, a German nun taking the place of a Jew in the gas chambers; or a soldier taking his own life to avoid being tortured into betraying his comrades to the enemy.

mattskramer said:
Is abortion always wrong? An unmarried schizophrenic patient become pregnant after being raped. Her father petitioned for abortion but the hospital refused because they said it was "non-therapeutic" and therefore illegal. The father maintained that it was the loving thing to do to prevent this child’s birth. In another real situation, a Romanian Jewish doctor aborted 3000 babies of Jewish mothers in concentration camps because, if pregnant, the mothers were to be incinerated. This means that the doctor actually saved 3000 and prevented the murder of 6000. This was the loving thing to do.

mattskramer said:
Is it always wrong to kill innocent people? a mother smothers her own crying baby to prevent her group from being discovered and killed by a band of hostile Indians. A ship’s captain orders some men thrown from an overloaded lifeboat to prevent it from sinking and killing everyone on board , thus killing a "few" for the "greater good" of the majority. Not resuscitating a monstrously deformed baby when it is birthed is the loving thing to do both for the child, for the parents, and family.

mattskramer said:
Picture this: A sexual pervert got his jollies out of seeing adults abuse children. He held family captive and forced adults to sexually abuse children while he watched. Technically, the captive adults abused the children, but if they refused to abuse the children, the kidnapper/pervert would have killed all of the members of the family. In that case, I would say that it was okay for the abuse to have happened.

mattskramer said:
Soldier A was taken as a POW. He was being severely interrogated. He was under so much torture that he gave information to the enemy. The enemy used that information and killed him and his fellow soldiers. He believed in absolutes and never questioned authority. Many people died as a result.

mattskramer said:
Soldier B was also taken as a POW. Word got to him as to what would likely happen to him. He managed to kill himself and take his secrets with him.

mattskramer said:
But consider this story. A poor but good laborer lives in a town that has no private charity and no welfare system. He barely earns enough to support himself and his good but ailing wife. This couple learns that the wife has a severe, increasingly painful, and almost terminal disease. A pharmacist has developed a drug that will instantly cure her but he demands far more than the laboring husband will be able to give for the drug. Without the drug, the wife will die within days. The husband is without help. The pharmacist’s wealth would not be severely damaged if he were to lose some of the drug that he created. Yet, the pharmacist would not accept any type of loan or other compensation except cash. If you were the poor laborer, would you steal / shoplift the drug – or would you let your wife die a painful and agonizing death within the next few days?

Good Grief. You are depressing.

I bet you are a real blast at parties.
 
mattskramer said:
Uh. Yeah. People can work together if they're not suspicious of each other. They can also work together if they are suspicious of each other. They can lock their cars and their homes. They can sign contracts. I’m sorry but I just don’t see what your comment has to do with my argument that there are very few, if any, absolutes.



That is not too abstract. “Thou shall not steal” is often thought of as an absolute. But consider this story. A poor but good laborer lives in a town that has no private charity and no welfare system. He barely earns enough to support himself and his good but ailing wife. This couple learns that the wife has a severe, increasingly painful, and almost terminal disease. A pharmacist has developed a drug that will instantly cure her but he demands far more than the laboring husband will be able to give for the drug. Without the drug, the wife will die within days. The husband is without help. The pharmacist’s wealth would not be severely damaged if he were to lose some of the drug that he created. Yet, the pharmacist would not accept any type of loan or other compensation except cash. If you were the poor laborer, would you steal / shoplift the drug – or would you let your wife die a painful and agonizing death within the next few days? This is the only choice available.

But the purpose of morality is to increase trust. Yes we have locks, but we should still have laws.

I would take it; it would be an extenuating cicumstance, but I would still believe rightfully that, in general, stealing is wrong.
 
Bottom line: Morality can be derived by asking oneself the simple question "does this particular behavior increase or decrease trust between individuals in a society?"

This is why there is such a campaign to destroy the historical moral systems of our nation, to weaken trust between individuals, and thus weaken society as a whole. It's psychological warfare. Why do you assist the enemies of america?
 
mattskramer said:
My point is that there are very few, if any, absolutes. One can almost always find exceptions to “the rule”. I, for one, will always think carefully about the situations in which I may find myself before jumping into any course of action. Question authority and think for yourself.

Question authority, good one.

Anyway, you are what would be called a post-modernist. People who think universal ethics are either an illusion or an attempt to use force to make people behave as if there were one. They assert that post-modern ethics is self-examination and self-sacrifice, leaving the option to decide on what is right and what is wrong on a situtational basis. However, in light of their disbelief in universal ethics, they still use terms such as "post-modern ethics" or "postmodern ethical perspective."
 
rtwngAvngr said:
But the purpose of morality is to increase trust. Yes we have locks, but we should still have laws.

I would take it; it would be an extenuating cicumstance, but I would still believe rightfully that, in general, stealing is wrong.

“…The purpose of morality is to increase trust” Hmmm. I just don’t know if I agree with that. I guess that it would depend on how you define morality and trust. For me, belief in someone to make what I would consider to be the right decision, given different situations, based on my experience with that person, leads to increased trust.

For example, do you remember this story?

“I had remembered an episode that happened several years ago. I told my mom that I would be home by 6:00. I gave her my word. While I was driving home on a long, practically deserted, stretch of rural road, I witnessed a minor traffic accident. If I paused to assist the motorist, it would be after 6:00 before I reached home. The man was bleeding but not seriously injured. Yet, he asked that I remain with him until authorities arrived. I did so. By the time I was able to find a phone, it was 6:30. I explained to my mother what had happened.

I think that I did the right thing by assisting that motorist, though it ended up with my breaking my word to my mother of all people". Through my 39 years, I must have done many things that would technically count as breaking some “generally agreed upon absolutes” more than once. Yet, she still trusts me.

Yes. I believe that we should have laws but, in actual cases, the courts should take extenuating cicumstance into consideration.

Wow! We completely agree with your statement, “I would still believe rightfully that, in general, stealing is wrong.”
 
mattskramer said:
“…The purpose of morality is to increase trust” Hmmm. I just don’t know if I agree with that. I guess that it would depend on how you define morality and trust. For me, belief in someone to make what I would consider to be the right decision, given different situations, based on my experience with that person, leads to increased trust.

For example, do you remember this story?

“I had remembered an episode that happened several years ago. I told my mom that I would be home by 6:00. I gave her my word. While I was driving home on a long, practically deserted, stretch of rural road, I witnessed a minor traffic accident. If I paused to assist the motorist, it would be after 6:00 before I reached home. The man was bleeding but not seriously injured. Yet, he asked that I remain with him until authorities arrived. I did so. By the time I was able to find a phone, it was 6:30. I explained to my mother what had happened.

I think that I did the right thing by assisting that motorist, though it ended up with my breaking my word to my mother of all people". Through my 39 years, I must have done many things that would technically count as breaking some “generally agreed upon absolutes” more than once. Yet, she still trusts me.

Yes. I believe that we should have laws but, in actual cases, the courts should take extenuating cicumstance into consideration.

Wow! We completely agree with your statement, “I would still believe rightfully that, in general, stealing is wrong.”


You just like to make noise. Courts do take extenuating circumstances into account. Your version of morality is still boiling down to an increase in trust.

I don't see any substantive disagreement.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
You just like to make noise. Courts do take extenuating circumstances into account. Your version of morality is still boiling down to an increase in trust.

I don't see any substantive disagreement.
I'm pretty much with you, RWA. Matt, in most of these examples, I have seen little or no disagreement about the course of action an individual SHOULD choose in any given circumstance. The only difference is in the label you choose to give the action. Do you call it "right" or do you call it "less wrong"?

The underlying element in the disagreement is authority. You choose to give man ultimate authority in determining morality. Others choose to give an outside source that authority.

Take the above example... The man might consider himself to be doing "right" because of his love for his wife and his wish to save her life. But, the pharmacist doesn't love the wife. He may not care all that much about saving her life. In the pharmacist's eyes, it is "right" to withold the drug because it is his property.

Now, most people would say, "Yeah, but, isn't it more important to save someone's life than to hold onto a thing?" I say "BINGO!" But, where does that idea come from? Why would most people say that life trumps property in importance? If the morality is coming from inside each individual, life shouldn't trump property. The dying woman's life would not be as relevent to the pharmacist. Maybe the drug he developed is going to be his source of livelihood, and he does not want to compromise the profit due to him. Each man has a legitimate argument, yet, most people still agree that life trumps property in importance. This makes no sense if morality is to be determined by each individual. Whether one acknowledges an objective standard or not, it still exists. We can see this in the general agreement between people in any situational question of morality. People instinctively understand the hierarchy of "importance" whether or not it is relevent to their own situation. That pharmacist, somewhere inside, knows that he should care more about the woman's life than a dose of drug. He can rationalize it, he can choose not to act upon it, but it still exists.

RWA, get out your Lewis. You can see where the argument is headed from here.
 
mom4 said:
I'm pretty much with you, RWA. Matt, in most of these examples, I have seen little or no disagreement about the course of action an individual SHOULD choose in any given circumstance. The only difference is in the label you choose to give the action. Do you call it "right" or do you call it "less wrong"?

The underlying element in the disagreement is authority. You choose to give man ultimate authority in determining morality. Others choose to give an outside source that authority.

Take the above example... The man might consider himself to be doing "right" because of his love for his wife and his wish to save her life. But, the pharmacist doesn't love the wife. He may not care all that much about saving her life. In the pharmacist's eyes, it is "right" to withold the drug because it is his property.

Now, most people would say, "Yeah, but, isn't it more important to save someone's life than to hold onto a thing?" I say "BINGO!" But, where does that idea come from? Why would most people say that life trumps property in importance? If the morality is coming from inside each individual, life shouldn't trump property. The dying woman's life would not be as relevent to the pharmacist. Maybe the drug he developed is going to be his source of livelihood, and he does not want to compromise the profit due to him. Each man has a legitimate argument, yet, most people still agree that life trumps property in importance. This makes no sense if morality is to be determined by each individual. Whether one acknowledges an objective standard or not, it still exists. We can see this in the general agreement between people in any situational question of morality. People instinctively understand the hierarchy of "importance" whether or not it is relevent to their own situation. That pharmacist, somewhere inside, knows that he should care more about the woman's life than a dose of drug. He can rationalize it, he can choose not to act upon it, but it still exists.

RWA, get out your Lewis. You can see where the argument is headed from here.


Right. And to go back to our legal metaphor, it seemed he wanted to eliminate the law, because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. Now, however he acknowledges that the law has value despite the existence of extenuating circumstances. We've flipped him, but he's trying to pretend we haven't. Go team goodness! :banana:
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Right. And to go back to our legal metaphor, it seemed he wanted to eliminate the law, because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. Now, however he acknowledges that the law has value despite the existence of extenuating circumstances. We've flipped him, but he's trying to pretend we haven't. Go team goodness! :banana:
Law is nothing more than codified morality. It is an attempt to generalize the hierarchy of moral importance. Each situation should be studied individually; this is true. This is where the law can "not work," because law is, by nature, a generalization. Most people can agree that law has flaws.

However, since we have reached an age in which One Supernatural Power is not acknowledged as the ultimate authority, people are at a loss as to where to bestow this authority. Agreed, a law may contain flaws, may not allow for extenuating circumstances. When people recognized law as being derived from a higher authority, it was not much of a problem. Just ask WWJD?

The problem comes when people refuse to acknowledge God, when they try to fill the need for morality with a set of manmade rules. No wonder the law fails! It seems Matt recognizes this, but instead of looking up to the True Authority, he chooses to look inward to individual man. In the end, this will only cause more havoc, because individuals have differing desires, place different levels of importance upon courses of action depending on that course's relevence to his own life. Is one man better than another? How can we judge? You see the slippery slope.
 
mom4 said:
Law is nothing more than codified morality. It is an attempt to generalize the hierarchy of moral importance. Each situation should be studied individually; this is true. This is where the law can "not work," because law is, by nature, a generalization. Most people can agree that law has flaws.

However, since we have reached an age in which One Supernatural Power is not acknowledged as the ultimate authority, people are at a loss as to where to bestow this authority. Agreed, a law may contain flaws, may not allow for extenuating circumstances. When people recognized law as being derived from a higher authority, it was not much of a problem. Just ask WWJD?

The problem comes when people refuse to acknowledge God, when they try to fill the need for morality with a set of manmade rules. No wonder the law fails! It seems Matt recognizes this, but instead of looking up to the True Authority, he chooses to look inward to individual man. In the end, this will only cause more havoc, because individuals have differing desires, place different levels of importance upon courses of action depending on that course's relevence to his own life. Is one man better than another? How can we judge? You see the slippery slope.

How do you know what Jesus would do in the year 2006? Did he give advise about situations similar to those that I mentioned? I doubt it. One can read the Bible. It has many absolutes but many of those absolutes don’t seem to be appropriate. In some rare cases, abortion or theft may be the best choice one can make given the circumstances.

I don’t recall ever even suggesting that I think that there should be no laws.

Bottom line: I suppose that I simply don’t like the term “absolutes”. I still contend that there are very few, if any, absolutes.
 
mattskramer said:
How do you know what Jesus would do in the year 2006? Did he give advise about situations similar to those that I mentioned? I doubt it. One can read the Bible. It has many absolutes but many of those absolutes don’t seem to be appropriate. In some rare cases, abortion or theft may be the best choice one can make given the circumstances.

I don’t recall ever even suggesting that I think that there should be no laws.

Bottom line: I suppose that I simply don’t like the term “absolutes”. I still contend that there are very few, if any, absolutes.

The law is absolutely the law, but courts take into consideration extenuating circumstances for specific cases. Think of it that way. I know you agree with that line of thinking. Why are you so wrapped up in this nonissue?
 
mattskramer said:
How do you know what Jesus would do in the year 2006? Did he give advise about situations similar to those that I mentioned? I doubt it. One can read the Bible.
We have a little thing called "prayer."

Bottom line: I suppose that I simply don’t like the term “absolutes”. I still contend that there are very few, if any, absolutes.
There are plenty of shades of gray, but some things ARE black or white.
 

Forum List

Back
Top