Situational Ethics examples

[mattskramer]

I am a strong believer in situational ethics. There are very few absolutes. Here are some situations. I’d like to know your opinions:Always add the link: http://gospel-herald.com/genesis_studies/situational_ethics.htm

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?

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?

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.

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.

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]

Two points:

Awww. Supposedly 20 people have viewed this thread but no one has replied yet. I thought that some “absolutists” (those who are practically opposed to independent thinking and reasoning) would have posted something by now.

Your point is taken. I should have supplied the link. How did you know that the entire post was not my creation alone? Oh well.

 

[Annie]

Two points:

Awww. Supposedly 20 people have viewed this thread but no one has replied yet. I thought that some “absolutists” (those who are practically opposed to independent thinking and reasoning) would have posted something by now.

Your point is taken. I should have supplied the link. How did you know that the entire post was not my creation alone? Oh well.

Gee, the 8th graders ask that a lot, when they get a 0, for plagarism! :teeth:

 

[Said1]

Gee, the 8th graders ask that a lot, when they get a 0, for plagarism! :teeth:

 

[dilloduck]

Two points:

Awww. Supposedly 20 people have viewed this thread but no one has replied yet. I thought that some “absolutists” (those who are practically opposed to independent thinking and reasoning) would have posted something by now.
Your point is taken. I should have supplied the link. How did you know that the entire post was not my creation alone? Oh well.

Shouldn't that read self-centered sophistry and rationalization ?

 

[mattskramer]

sophistry - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry

Nope. It doesn't seem to fit but thanks for the funny Ad hominem. Now, how about giving some rebuttals to the examples in the actual post.

 

[Annie]

sophistry - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophistry

Nope. It doesn't seem to fit but thanks for the funny Ad hominem. Now, how about giving some rebuttals to the examples in the actual post.

It seems no one is interested, get over it. But do include links when you use others' material.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Absolutist metaphysics leave no room for humanity in the rendering of decisions. Thus, within the context of these absolutist metaphysics, any attrocity can be committed in the name of one's favorite deity or, for the secularists, the state.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Moral standards are standards that exist to be referenced in standard situations. Weird ass concocted bullcrap scenarios come up only rarely. In our legal system we deal with this with the concept of the "extenuating circumstance". Notice we don't ditch our whole legal system?

 

[Nuc]

OK Matt, since you don't have any takers I'll give a shot at it.

"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?"

Depends on what her husband thinks. If he's OK with it it's fine. If not she's a slut.

"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?"

Spies give up absolute ethics. It's part of their job. It's like saying violence is a sin. Well maybe, but not if your job is boxer. She can do it because it fits her job description.

"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. "

Suicide is not always wrong. It's not universally considered a sin or wrong. In many parts of Asia it is considered the proper thing to do in certain situations.

"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."

Even most of the fanatics think make exceptions in the case of rape. This is a tough question.

"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."

A captain has a duty to make the right decision that goes beyond conventional morality. The mother did the right thing because less people die that way. The world doesn't need a deformed baby.

 

[Gem]

Matt,

I'm a bit perplexed as to the point of your post. I have seen no one here, even those who are the most adamant in their opinions, who have said that there are no exceptions, variations, etc.

It seems to me, that with that in mind, the only point of your post was to demonstrate, in a vaguely insulting way, that you felt many people here were so absolutely unable to view alternatives to their beliefs (i.e. adultery, abortion) that you could "catch them," with your "sneaky" post about a bunch of far fetched "exceptions to the rule."

Perhaps that wasn't your intention...but to start a thread such as this...then come back to gloat when no one responds (which is mainly because its a ludicrous thread to begin with)...one is left with no other conclusion that you were posting to be self-righteous...i.e. "Oh, so you're anti-abortion, eh? Well what about if the woman was in a concentration camp and having an abortion would mean she wasn't going to be incinerated? Huh? What about that you close-minded absolutist!!!!"

Um...if she had carried the baby it would have been killed along with her in the ovens, so it really is a pointless question, isn't it? Most people who are anti-abortion are in support of abortion in cases where it would save the life of the mother...and your "exception" fits that category doesn't it?

Everyone knows that there are exceptions to the rule. But they are just that, exceptions. Murder is wrong. We must have a penal code and a justice system that recognizes that. Murdering someone in self-defense is murder with an exception...we must have a penal code and a justice system that recognizes that....we do.

I suppose most politely, Matt, this thread came across as pointless considering that no one here has claimed that there are no exceptions to a rule. What I'm wondering is if you meant it to be as pointless and insulting as you managed to make it when you came back to gloat that no one had bothered to respond to it?

 

[mattskramer]

RtwngAvngr -

I did not even mention the legal system. I was asking about your views on these situations. Also, they are not all “Weird ass concocted bullcrap scenarios”. At least you see that the courts recognize “extenuating circumstances” (Situations). It was fun to see you try to duck and dodge. Now, will you give some straight answers? After reviewing these examples, do you believe in “situational ethics? Do you think that the people in these stories did the right thing?

Nuc –

Thanks for the apparently thoughtful replies.

Gem –

Well. Perhaps I approached this in a poor way. I think that I was not feeling well. My point was to challenge people to give me some things that they consider to be absolutes. I have been philosophizing for a while about ethics and have come to the tentative conclusion that there are no absolutes – at least not in this field.

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.

Ok, ok. I’m sorry if the post started out sounding arrogant and patronizing. Honestly, would someone please challenge me with something that they, not our legal system, would consider to be an absolute?

 

[5stringJeff]

Here's a question for you, Matt:

True or false: It is always wrong to sexually abuse infants for pleasure.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RtwngAvngr -

I did not even mention the legal system. I was asking about your views on these situations. Also, they are not all “Weird ass concocted bullcrap scenarios”. At least you see that the courts recognize “extenuating circumstances” (Situations). It was fun to see you try to duck and dodge. Now, will you give some straight answers? After reviewing these examples, do you believe in “situational ethics? Do you think that the people in these stories did the right thing?

No ducking and dodging. It's called an analogy. just because there are extenuating circumstances that may occasionally test a standard, doesn't mean we should take the laws off the books. Apply this to morality. Can you do that?

 

[Nienna]

Matt,
There ARE moral absolutes. Killing an unborn child is ALWAYS wrong. But, the real world stinks. Sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils... like aborting the child so that at least one of the people involved can live.

The situation doesn't change the morality. Sometimes we are faced with decisions in which either choice will be wrong, and we just have to pick the best decision we can. But morality and truth still stand.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Matt,
There ARE moral absolutes. Killing an unborn child is ALWAYS wrong. But, the real world stinks. Sometimes your only choice is the lesser of two evils... like aborting the child so that at least one of the people involved can live.

The situation doesn't change the morality. Sometimes we are faced with decisions in which either choice will be wrong, and we just have to pick the best decision we can. But morality and truth still stand.

You nailed it, mom!

 

[5stringJeff]

I am a strong believer in situational ethics. There are very few absolutes. Here are some situations. I’d like to know your opinions:Always add the link: http://gospel-herald.com/genesis_studies/situational_ethics.htm

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?

Adultery is wrong. Yet, in this case, the woman was released. However, it doesn't say what the woman was imprisoned for. If she got out of a sentence that she deserved, how is that right?

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?

Indeed, prostitution is wrong, whether for personal gain or for the gain of one's country.

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.

The first two situations (succumbing to disease, being killed by others) would not be classified as suicide. The third would likely not happen, as soldiers aren't trained to commit suicide. Regardless, suicide is not morally right.

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.

Is it "loving" to prevent a child from being born? Is it loving to allow women to not face the consequences of their actions? Doing things for the greater good, as you advocate, is fine, but within the boundaries of absolute morals like "killing innocent babies is wrong." Otherwise, you end up going down the moral path that tells you that it's OK to kill mentally retarded kids, elderly people, etc. because they are a drain on society.

 

[Nienna]

You nailed it, mom!

You're a sweetie!

 

[mattskramer]

Here's a question for you, Matt:

True or false: It is always wrong to sexually abuse infants for pleasure.

Hmmmm. Nope. Right off hand, I can’t think of an occasion in which it would be justified to sexually abuse infants for pleasure. Wait. Yes. 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.

The ends (survival of the family members) justified the means (obedience to the kidnapper). So the answer is False.

 

[mattskramer]

No ducking and dodging. It's called an analogy. just because there are extenuating circumstances that may occasionally test a standard, doesn't mean we should take the laws off the books. Apply this to morality. Can you do that?

Again, I’m not talking about legal books or our legal system. I’m asking you for examples of absolutes. Let me try to be clearer. Do you think that certain thinks should never be done under any circumstance what so ever? Similarly, do you think that someone who did that thing that should never be done was wrong for doing so?