Situational Ethics vs. Moral Relativism

I am building up to a bigger post in the next few days concerning the morality of war in principle, in purpose and in strategy. It's an issue (issues) that in many aspects I find simple and clear and in other apsects find incredibly complex. I also recognize that I have some inconsistencies in my thoughts with which I am still wrestling, but we will get to those later...

Today I want to discuss the difference between situational ethics and moral relativism. The two are often confused or, if not confused, thought to be essentially the same thing. But there is a difference between the two and one is good and the other is not. Situational ethics says that the moral thing to do is determined within the context of the circumstances. Moral relativism says that the moral thing to do is determined by the individual.

Continue reading "Situational Ethics vs. Moral Relativism"

Question: Is it morally wrong for one person to trip someone else?

Answer: It depends. Why would they trip the other person? Is it to be mean and hurt them? If so, then, Yes, it is wrong to trip them. However, if it is to keep them from being hit by traffic or perhaps in order to stop a fleeing theif, then, No, it isn't wrong to trip them. In that case the ethical thing to do would be to trip the other person.

This is a good example of situational ethics. Whether an action is moral is often dependent on the circumstances. NOTE: This is not to say that all morality is situational. There are obviously some things that are wrong regardless of the circumstances (another post). It is simply to say that knowing the best way to apply general moral principles is sometimes dependent on the details of the situation.

In contrast, moral relativism would take the exact same set of circumstances (tripping someone simply to humiliate them) and say that the morality is dependent on the individual. In other words, it could be wrong for you but right for me for no other reason than you think it is wrong and I think it is right.

Situational ethics does not free individuals from moral responsibility. Man is still obligated to obey the universal, God-given moral laws. Rather, it is moral relativism that seeks to make man a God unto himself by destroying obligation to any morality outside of the individual's desires. That is why situational ethics is a good thing when properly understood, whereas moral relativism is not.

I guess what I hope to have established with this post is the recognition that there are situations where the context of the situation, the details of the circumstances, will determine whether the actions taken or being considered are moral or not.

In my next post I will try and make the case that there is a moral hierarchy and that sometimes the right thing to do is something wrong. If that sounds like I have fallen off my rocker, just be patient and stick with me.