Situation Ethics, God's Law, and Pluralism

Great Debates
1

I do take Upstatic’s point that “The ethics of…” threads have multiplied like bacteria lately – though his own parody threads have contributed to the plague. However, I’m taking the opportunity to open one of my own, because some basic assumptions I have made have been brought into question in thread after thread, and I want to see it debated.

My ethical principles: Both Hillel, one of the greatest exponents of Rabbinical understanding of Jewish Law, and Jesus, who is for Christians the final word on what God wants, explicitly defined the proper behavior of God-fearing man as to love God with all that is in him and to love one’s fellow man as oneself. Again and again Jesus makes clear as against legalistic applications of the Jewish Law that he calls for a humanistic application that takes personal need into account.

Some years ago Joseph Fletcher brought out a seminal book on the subject called Situation Ethics. In this he portrayed the standard I set forth above as the only hard-and-fast ethical rules. Anything else was applicable only to the extent that it fit with that standard.

It occurs to me that, with the allegiance owed to God to one side, the second law comes very close to the ethical system defined by Gaudere and others as appropriate to the needs of atheists. Treat yourself with disciplined kindness; treat others with the same standard, expecting in general they, not you, will do the self-discipline they may need.

Against this Chaim and Adam, from quite different stances, have defended the obligation of keeping God’s Law as they understand it, and the importance of presenting this as at minimum the proper course to urge on others, and to a certain extent that which should be enacted into public law. And I can understand the idea that one is obliged to keep God’s Law and to ensure that to the extent one can God’s Law is kept. Taken to its extreme, however, that way lies church-based tyranny.

So I’d welcome arguments from all aspects on where I stand on this issue. Do I misinterpret atheist ethics? I am certainly creating a straw man of conservative Christian ethics taken to the extreme; to what extent do I overrepresent the conservative Christian case, and to what extent do I model it accurately?

2

Was this the plan from the beginning? To recommend, as Gaudere and RT did, that Lib start new threads when he has a comment to make that involves libertarian ethics? And then when he does so, talk about his threads like they are bacteria? Can it be a conspiracy?

Et tu, Poly? Was it fun? Wasn’t it a hoot to fool ol’ Lib? Where are they now that had asked me to do these new threads? Does not one of them defend me?

Once more, for the record:

From Confessions of a Thread Hijacker

Libertarian, posted 02-28-2000 01:24 PM
quote:

Gaudere
So you mean, like, when I say that the best way to deal with problems in public schools is to eliminate them, and then get into an explanation of why the whole notion of rights is obfuscated by so-called “public property”?
Hmmm…

Maybe when I’m moved to interpret an otherwise mundane issue libertarianly, rather than respond in the mundane debate thread, I could start a new thread for the greater debate. Would that work?

Gaudere, posted 02-28-2000 01:29 PM
quote:

quote:

Maybe when I’m moved to interpret an otherwise mundane issue libertarianly, rather than respond in the mundane debate thread, I could start a new thread for the greater debate. Would that work?

Yes.

(Italics hers.)

RTFirefly, posted 02-28-2000 03:53 PM
quote:

quote:

Maybe when I’m moved to interpret an otherwise mundane issue libertarianly, rather
than respond in the mundane debate thread, I could start a new thread for the greater debate. Would that work?

Lib, I think that’s a perfectly reasonable solution! It would not only allow us to be honest, but peaceful as well. (What a notion, huh?)

I’m glad a good time was had by all. See ya.

3

Libertarian, you have overreacted. I was concerned in opening this thread, dealing as it does with ethics, that another poster who was making his dislike of threads dealing with ethics known might be offended. In one of his threads, I stated that I felt you were doing precisely what was appropriate, and that I for one enjoyed debating ethical topics with you, as did many others.

I would request that you retract your condemnation of me for considering Upstatic’s feelings. As you will see from other posts, it was emphatically not a putdown of you. If “multiplied like bacteria” was offensive to you, you have my apologies; it was just an effort to inject a little levity into what was otherwise a too-serious opening post.

4

This was the thread to which I referred in the previous post, Lib. Please read it before responding.

5

Or one could always choose to answer the OP.

Poly:
love one’s fellow man as oneself seems a noble ideal, but I am not certain that it delivers much in the way of practical ethicla guidance. Be good delivers much the same message. There are numerous ways to view and express love. A person hardened or embittered by life may view it as an expression of love to prepare others for the hardships of the world. To such a person, stealing unsecured proprety might be a loving act, a lesson in teh value of vigilance. To someone who believes in eternal judgment and any particular list of sinful behaviors, it might be viewed as a loving act to drie certain behaviors out of the population by any means possible, since the welfare of the soul is infinitely more important than welfare of the flesh.

In other words, I do not see how adding that “absolute” guideline really differentiates it from purely situational ethics.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

6

I should mention, though, that I feel much more comfortable in teh company of those who express their ethics as you do, Poly, than I do in the company of those who view ethics the way that ARG330 and cmkeller have expressed.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

7

I must object here. I have never implied that the Bible is an appropriate source for legislation in a secular society, such as America’s. In fact, I have consistently said just the opposite.

A slight correction re: your reference to Hillel. The Hillel story goes as follows (emphasis mine): A non-Jew came to Hillel and asked to be converted to Judaism, on the condition that Hillel teach him the Torah “on one foot” (i.e., sum it up in a single statement). Hillel replied: “Love your neighbor as yourself; this is the great principle of the Torah. All else is commentary.”

In other words, Hillel did not see “the golden rule” as a principle that overrules parts of the Torah if they seem “unloving,” he saw the entire Torah as an extended definition of that principle. Thus, applying the legalistic stuff, to Hillel, meant “loving one’s fellow,” because G-d’s law is the ultimate in greatness.

Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@kozmo.com

“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

8

My usual failure to make appropriate distinctions, Chaim. I apologize.

Try this: “Chaim and Adam have for disparate reasons spoken of the ethical value of keeping God’s Law as specified in the Bible. Adam has suggested that this viewpoint is to some extent the appropriate foundation for public law.”

I was quite aware of your stance regarding your personal commitment to keeping Torah and your defense of personal choice in a pluralistic society. And I regret that I mis-depicted you as advocating your pesonal ethical standards as appropriate for legal standards.

9

Lib, for the record, I’ve defended you here. My apologies for the slow reaction time; I’m spending less time than usual in GD.

The mark of a truly great mind isn’t whether you’re right or wrong. It’s how well you can weasel out of a jam. - Unca Cecil

10

The study of Ethics is the study of “what is good.” Ethics presupposes there we can distinguish a difference between “good” behavior and “bad” behavior (with the possibility of neutrality). It also presupposes that we can choose between good behavior and bad behavior based on our analysis.

I offer my own moral/ethical code, derived from my best rational understanding of ethics and my best understanding of my own psychology. To the extent that I use my I judge not only my own behavior, but also that of others, I ascribe a degree of universiality to it. However, since I am not the perfect fount of all wisdom, I offer the following as my opinion.

Do no harm: I resolve to do no harm either directly, or indirectly through a forseeable, mechanical chain of events.

For instance: I will not assault, murder, steal, rape, libel, slander another human being. I take appropriate caution with my automobile and my home and grounds to prevent any foreseeable harm I might do indirectly.

However, if I had to kill an innocent person at the demand of someone to save the lives of a hundred hostages, I would not do so. The lives of hostages are subject to another’s will, not my own, and he, not I, is responsible for his own actions.

If harm from one of my actions is inevitable (assuming that harm is due to no other will than my own), I will choose the path that has the least harm. If the situation is too complicated to analyze (see The Brain in the Vat, I will make my best guess.

Consent: I will not perform an action with repercussions on another, either for good or ill without his consent. However, see Implied Consent below.

Reciprocity: I will perform all actions related to exchange to offer fair and commensurate value.

For instance, if I were to purchase a car from someone who was desperate to eat, I would pay the same amount as I would to someone who was not desperate. To do otherwise would be exploiting his desperation.

Conformity: Since I live in an interdependent, techological society, and since I don’t care to live by myself on a remote farm in Montana, I consider it an obligation to submit to the reasonable demands of my society. Thus, I pay my taxes, register my car, remain clothed in public, etc.

Implied Consent: If someone commits a non-consensual act, then by reversing De Sade’s philosophy, he has, by that action, consented to his victim or his agents to perform any action at all against him. Another way of looking at it is that if someone violates consent, they have demonstrated that they are insane and thus cannot make an informed moral choice.

In either case, I am bound, in my response, to at least do the minimum harm, and only that necessary to prevent him violating the consent of another.

Of course, the application of the above principles in daily life requires judgement and intelligence, and many situations are more difficult to judge than others. When evaluating the behavior of other people, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding exigent circumstances.

If a person attempts to coerce a moral, ethical or legal stricture upon me by that does not follow from the above principles, I feel free to ignore, subvert, or resist that coercion by any means necessary in accordance with my principles.

He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’