Reply to thread

Situational Ethics and Moral Relativism


Thanks for your comments so far. This is a topic that has the potential to reach deep into us, to our very core, and examine our core beliefs. It is my observation that much of who and what we are as humans stems from our central core. Examining this (and questioning) our central iore beliefs can tell each of us much about ourselves.


My definition of situational ethics is similar to and may include the concept of moral relativism. Relativism contends that all conduct is relative to the circumstance. Thus, each individual must decide what is moral or immoral in a given situation. Ultimately, every man is his own judge of the matter. All situations are always relative; situational ethicists try to avoid such words as 'never' and 'always'. Should the situation (circumstances) change, what is “right” or “wrong” may change 180 degrees.


One of the problems I have with situational ethics is “Monday Morning Quarterbacking”. Because your “right” or “wrong” behavior is entirely dependent on the specific circumstances, there is a natural tendency to judge behavior, after the fact, when all the circumstances are known and have been analyzed.


GWB was criticized for not responding quickly enough with enough money for Tsunami victims a few years ago. He was criticized for not pledging many millions within the first 48 hours after the disaster. Bush explained that he needed time to assess the situation and he did pledge a record amount on the 6th day. It is easy to criticize when all the facts are in and have been analyzed. It is much more difficult to behave properly not all the facts are in and there has been little time for analysis. I'm no big fan of GWB But I did come to his defense in this matter.


We are quick to criticize a cop for his/her actions during the heat of a moment. We have the luxury of knowing all the facts and have had time to reflect on those facts. The cop has no such luxury. Neither does a soldier. Both have to react on the spot and then sit back while everyone else gets to act as judge and jury with no pressure and all the facts.


I believe in moral absolutes. I see behavior in Black and White. That does not mean that there should not be debate about right and wrong. What I see is 98% White or 98% Black, with a little (very little) wiggle room of gray area. 98% of all behaviors are "right" or "wrong" in any situation.


The situational ethicist always sees things in shade of gray. No behavior is ALWAYS right and no behavior is ALWAYS wrong.


If someone has a better definition of “Situational Ethics” or a different interpretation, let us all know.


Back
Top