The recurring question without an answer

[Rau]

If you have a close connection with any of them (especially familal connections) then genetic rules apply. Close family over distant family. Distant family over strangers.

How do you weigh it up? How many strangers would you need to be saving before sacrificing mum would be the right call (in your view)?

 

[macska]

We’re defining terms differently here. If you were lethal at 20 yards, then shooting to wound you, at 25 yards, as you walked toward me , and in order to prevent you from harming me , wouldn’t be a “pre-emptive strike”. It would be self-defense against the harm you would cause to me.

I was hoping that we reached am agreement. You said:

However, to place yourself in a position in a way that endangers others is an act, even if done unknowingly or unintentionally. And, the person whose health or life is endangered by that act does have the right to defend himself against harm.

As such, in these very constrained circumstances it is allowed to use lethal defense against an “innocent” person. We agreed, and therefore the case is resolved.

Now it needs to be pointed out that this is an excellent example of “situational” ethics. If there would be any other ways to resolve the problem, then the lethal force is NOT allowed. If there is a way to resolve the problem without using any force, then even small force is not allowed. If there is a way to resolve the problem with a small force, then excessive force is not allowed.

Summary: The amount of the allowable force is contingent upon the situation. Which means that the solution needs a situational ethics. I hope you can see that.

If you wish to continue, use this summary as a starting point.

 

[Annie]

situational ethics

As I tried to explain earlier, situation ethics is a specific way of looking at how to handle ethical problems.

Obviously every ethical problem is embedded in a situation, and seeing which moral principles apply and how they should be applied will vary according to the situation. If someone is physically attacking you, you don’t start thinking about the rules for adultery for a solution to the ethical problem you face.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

that would stop him, absolutely. But if you miss, or if you’re not a good enough shot to place it “just so”, then more would unfortunately need to be done. It might be well to note that someone crazed like that is moving precipitously and no single shot could be all that accurate. It could well be that you would aim for his arm, as you note, and end up firing a lethal shot to his torso.

In a scenario like that, you’d just have to do the best you could, with what you have to work with, and hope for the best (or the “least bad”).

I have the very same hope. It is gruesome to think of having to kill a mentally disabled autistic savant, and God forbid it would ever become anything more than a classroom hypothetical.

I have trained to be able to take the life of an aggressor if it ever came to that, and my trainer (retired US Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant) assures me that I have the skill, but I much prefer to shoot targets and tin cans on the land adjacent to my house. I had to euthanize an injured bird recently (flew into the side of my house and was fatally injured) and I hated to have to do that. I even let bugs out of the house when I can, rather than swatting them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Now it needs to be pointed out that this is an excellent example of “situational” ethics.

This is not the usual meaning of “situational ethics”, at least not the term as explained by Wikipedia. What you have achieved is agreement on an absolute moral law that has within it certain conditions that say when and how it applies. You can call those conditions the “situation” if you like, but that does not make this an example of “situational ethics” which is opposed to all absolute moral laws. Traditional situational ethics places primary emphasis on the beliefs and attitudes and personal judgement of the individual. Read the Wikipedia article, which says:

one looks to personal ideals of what is appropriate to guide them, rather than an unchanging universal code of conduct

“all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love” in the particular situation

Fletcher proposed that loving ends justify any means.

Actions only acquire moral status as a means to an end.

Fletcher (1966, p. 134) - nothing is inherently right or wrong,

Examples given justify euthanasia. You certainly did not get Gorgias or any other faithful Catholic to agree with situational ethics, despite your claim to the contrary. There are some noble and good principles expressed by situational ethics. But those few points of agreement do not excuse the vastly more pervasive points of disagreement between situational ethics and Catholicism.

 

[Gorgias]

As such, in these very constrained circumstances it is allowed to use lethal defense against an “innocent” person. We agreed, and therefore the case is resolved.

Except that this isn’t the agreement. It’s not carte blanche to use lethal force. (I was going to go back to my post and add “only the minimum amount of force necessary to repel the aggression is morally licit.” So, if you want to use that notion to suggest that lethal force is always allowable, then we still haven’t reached 100% agreement.)

Now it needs to be pointed out that this is an excellent example of “situational” ethics.

That’s not what “situational ethics” means. Rather, it means that norms (like the ones that we’ve just outlined) may be broken, on a subjective basis, for the purpose of creating a perceived ‘better’ outcome. In other words, situational ethics is a form of consequentialism: if you felt that a better outcome would occur if you didn’t defend the aggrieved against the aggressor (maybe because the aggressor is your mom or your favorite NFL quarterback), then you would throw out the norm and choose a different course of action, in order to pursue the perceived “better” end.

What “situational ethics” doesn’t mean is that there are situations to assess in moral questions.

(Edited to add: I see that @LeafByNiggle just explained what I was getting at.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you have a close connection with any of them (especially familal connections) then genetic rules apply. Close family over distant family. Distant family over strangers.

How do you weigh it up? How many strangers would you need to be saving before sacrificing mum would be the right call (in your view)?

Tough call, Rau. Old people? Young children? One definitely. Five probably. More? Tough call…

 

[o_mlly]

In the normal scenario all the people are strangers. If you have a close connection with any of them (especially familal connections) then genetic rules apply. Close family over distant family. Distant family over strangers.

So, is the consequentialist’s guiding principle, “Throw the switch unless it’s mum on the track or any other relative closer than, say, second cousin once removed”? You see the difficulty, don’t you? If the principle is rational then it hold even against strong emotions. According to your reply, at the point one no longer feels for the one on the track then one may throw the switch.

So you would do something that you thought…wasn’t the best?

I would follow the rational principles of Catholic morality because I think that is best rather than what I felt was best. The point is that situational ethics has no principles to guide one’s actions. Roundly condemned by Pius XII just for that reason, no serious moralist would name their new system situational ethics. So we see the same system now but labelled with different names: consequentailism and proportionalism.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

In the normal scenario all the people are strangers. If you have a close connection with any of them (especially familal connections) then genetic rules apply. Close family over distant family. Distant family over strangers.

So, is the consequentialist’s guiding principle, “Throw the switch unless it’s mum on the track or any other relative closer than, say, second cousin once removed”? You see the difficulty, don’t you? If the principle is rational then it hold even against strong emotions. According to your reply, at the point one no longer feels for the one on the track then one may throw the switch.

So you would do something that you thought…wasn’t the best?

I would follow the rational principles of Catholic morality because I think that is best rather than what I felt was best. The point is that situational ethics has no principles to guide one’s actions. Roundly condemned by Pius XII just for that reason, no serious moralist would name their new system situational ethics. So we see the same system now but labelled with different names: consequentailism and proportionalism.

If you change the scenario you are likely to get a different answer. And there will be a rational answer to each. You don’t get exactly the same answer each time. Has that not been obvious to you? We’ve had enough examples. That’s how these things work. You make changes and see why the answers change. Have you not been following any of this?

‘Would you sacrifice a stranger to save five others Freddy?’
‘Yep’.
‘But would you sacrifice your mother to save five strangers?’
‘Nope’.

It’s a little more complex than a simple mathematical equation. I thought that you would have understood that by now. Apparently not. You seem to need a one-size-fits-all solution. This whole thread has been about why that is not possible.

And you were berating situational ethics and its lack of principles in this manner:

‘What principles? There is but one principle in situation ethics: Do what you think is best.’

Exactly as you said you would follow 'the rational principles of Catholic morality. Everyone has a valid reason for not throwing the switch (or pulling the trigger etc). Even if it’s an emotionally based one.

I don’t know why anyone bothers with these hypotheticals. The majority of people posting on this thread seem to have no understanding of the concept whatsoever.

 

[macska]

What you have achieved is agreement on an absolute moral law that has within it certain conditions that say when and how it applies. You can call those conditions the “situation” if you like, but that does not make this an example of “situational ethics” which is opposed to all absolute moral laws.

Are you serious? An “absolute” law is only applicable under certain circumstances??? That is an oxymoron. The word “absolute” means “under any and all circumstances”. An “absolute” moral law
would be “extra-marital sex” is wrong under any and all circumstances. Or “homicide” is wrong under any an all circumstances. However to say “murder is wrong” is a qualified command, because it is contingent upon the definition of “murder” (which is illegal homicide).

Traditional situational ethics places primary emphasis on the beliefs and attitudes and personal judgement of the individual.

Incorrect. Situational ethics means to take everything into consideration, which, of course includes the actual circumstances. No “primary” per se.

It’s not carte blanche to use lethal force.

No one said it is. Maybe you missed my argument of:

As such, in these very constrained circumstances it is allowed to use lethal defense against an “innocent” person.

And…

Now it needs to be pointed out that this is an excellent example of “situational” ethics. If there would be any other ways to resolve the problem, then the lethal force is NOT allowed. If there is a way to resolve the problem without using any force, then even small force is not allowed. If there is a way to resolve the problem with a small force, then excessive force is not allowed.

Exactly what you said.

So, where is the disagreement? I don’t see any. Except that both Leaf and you seem to be confused about the meaning of “situational” ethics.

 

[Gorgias]

So, where is the disagreement? I don’t see any.

Maybe there isn’t any. I was just attempting to make the point that the morally licit use of force – any force, whether lethal or not – is contingent on what is the minimum response necessary in order to stop the aggressor and effect the self-defense.

Except that both Leaf and you seem to be confused about the meaning of “situational” ethics.

Hmm… don’t think so. Let’s see, though: how would you define the meaning of “situation ethics”?

 

[o_mlly]

If you change the scenario you are likely to get a different answer.

Yes, that’s the problem in your system but not in mine. I do not throw the switch. But your moral system has no principles. You say one may throw the switch unless one has feelings for the one who will die. You’re ruled by your emotions. Good luck with that.

And there will be a rational answer to each.

Not so. You let mum off the hook but we do not know if your second cousin once-removed gets a pass or not. Why? Because you feel and do not reason in deciding who lives or dies. Feelings are fleeting; reasoned principles not at all.

Exactly as you said you would follow 'the rational principles of Catholic morality. Everyone has a valid reason for not throwing the switch (or pulling the trigger etc). Even if it’s an emotionally based one.

Well, that does pretty much sum up our difference. Your moral system would be ruled by your emotions, mine by reason. Didn’t someone attempt to ridicule Catholic morality as an irrational system? It appears Catholic morality is the only rational system offered in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

ya’ll are still quibbling and changing the thought experiment …

Yes, neither knows how to propose or manage a hypothetical. But their moral system allows them to blame us as being too ignorant rather than 'fess up to their own inadequacies.

Forgive the children, for they know not what they do.

I don’t know why anyone bothers with these hypotheticals. The majority of people posting on this thread seem to have no understanding of the concept whatsoever.

 

[macska]

Maybe there isn’t any. I was just attempting to make the point that the morally licit use of force – any force, whether lethal or not – is contingent on what is the minimum response necessary in order to stop the aggressor and effect the self-defense.

Certainly no disagreement here. Which is very good news!

Hmm… don’t think so. Let’s see, though: how would you define the meaning of “situation ethics”?

As you wish. Situation ethics says that one must analyze every facet of the act, and take them into consideration. The physical act itself, the aim one wishes to achieve and all the circumstances.

So in ethics we need to evaluate the “what”, the “why” and the “how”. What do you want to achieve, why do you want to achieve it, and how do you intend to achieve it. That is all. The word “situational” should not even be brought up. It is included in the circumstances.

Absolute ethics would say: “homicide (or extra-marital sex)” are always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Situational ethics would say “homicide (or extra-marital sex)” are sometimes wrong, depending on the circumstances.

As you said (and I agree) if and when when force is used, it must be minimal. Even if the same desired effect could be achieved by using excessive force, it is not allowed.

So, now. How do you define “situational ethics”? So that we can understand each other.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What you have achieved is agreement on an absolute moral law that has within it certain conditions that say when and how it applies. You can call those conditions the “situation” if you like, but that does not make this an example of “situational ethics” which is opposed to all absolute moral laws.

Are you serious? An “absolute” law is only applicable under certain circumstances??? That is an oxymoron. The word “absolute” means “under any and all circumstances”.

No, you have a misunderstanding of what an absolute law is. An absolute law means it holds under all circumstances described by the law. The circumstances are part of the law. That are not new circumstances that were not envisioned when the law was stated. An absolute law is in contrast to a relative law which is is changeable based on circumstances not stated in the law.

An “absolute” moral law would be “extra-marital sex” is wrong under any and all circumstances.

That is true, and it is.

Or “homicide” is wrong under any an all circumstances. However to say “murder is wrong” is a qualified command, because it is contingent upon the definition of “murder” (which is illegal homicide).

This is just word-play. “Homicide” is just as much a legal term as “murder”. All you are pointing out is that sometimes the fulfillment of the conditions of an absolute law (such as thou shalt not kill) are difficult to determine. That is not the same thing as calling the law not absolute.

Traditional situational ethics places primary emphasis on the beliefs and attitudes and personal judgement of the individual.

Incorrect. Situational ethics means to take everything into consideration, which, of course includes the actual circumstances. No “primary” per se.

Did you even read the Wikipedia article on what situational ethics means? If you are going to use a term that has been widely discussed, it would be best if you abide by the most common definitions of that term, rather than inventing your own definitions that exclude features others have included.

 

[Gorgias]

So, now. How do you define “situational ethics”? So that we can understand each other.

OK… I think that what you describe – “analyze every facet of the act: the act itself, the aim, and all the circumstances” – is exactly what an absolute system of ethics (for example, Catholic Moral Theology) actually does. In fact, as you point out, the circumstances do come into play in the consideration of the morality of an action, from the perspective of Catholic moral theology.

However, situational ethics isn’t simply “ethics that brings awareness of the situation into play”, as you seem to be suggesting. Rather, it’s a system of ethics that denies that “physical act + aim + circumstances = determination of the morality of the act”. It’s a system that says that the exact same set of circumstances, which gave rise to one determination in one case, can be thrown out the window in another case. Situation ethics is one variety of consequentialism – if you like the consequences, you call the act “moral”. If you do not, you change your definition of what’s moral in that case.

 

[Rau]

As you wish. Situation ethics says that one must analyze every facet of the act, and take them into consideration. The physical act itself, the aim one wishes to achieve and all the circumstances.

That is vacuous. Because after you gather all that data, you then apply an undefined personal process to decide what’s right (for you). If you like mum, she’s safe, if not…so long mum?

 

[macska]

No, you have a misunderstanding of what an absolute law is. An absolute law means it holds under all circumstances described by the law.

This is the quintessential “word-play”. Absolute means “under any and all circumstances”. NOT “under any and all circumstances enumerated in the text of the law”.

Did you even read the Wikipedia article on what situational ethics means? If you are going to use a term that has been widely discussed, it would be best if you abide by the most common definitions of that term, rather than inventing your own definitions that exclude features others have included.

Sure did. It expresses the author’s opinion, nothing else. And it has some elementary errors, which I will not go into.

OK… I think that what you describe – “analyze every facet of the act: the act itself, the aim, and all the circumstances” – is exactly what an absolute system of ethics (for example, Catholic Moral Theology) actually does. In fact, as you point out, the circumstances do come into play in the consideration of the morality of an action, from the perspective of Catholic moral theology.

But that is not what it says. “Absolute” moral code would be applicable in any and all circumstances. For example, under Catholic moral code any and all physical acts are “moral”, if they are ordered by God (or assumed to have been ordered by God). The genocide against the Amalekites was just hunky-dory, since it was commanded by God. That is “relative” morality.

 

[otjm]

You, me, and a whole lot of pilots who fly our interceptor/fighters.

 

[Gorgias]

But that is not what it says.

Umm… that’s exactly what Catholic moral theology says. See the Catechism’s section on The Morality of Human Acts for a primer on what the Church teaches. (It might surprise you. )

For example, under Catholic moral code any and all physical acts are “moral”, if they are ordered by God (or assumed to have been ordered by God).

Are there physical acts ordered by God in our world? We’re talking about Christian morality. I think you’re being anachronistic here.

The genocide against the Amalekites was just hunky-dory, since it was commanded by God.

Was there genocide against the Amelekites? Interestingly, after “God’s command to commit genocide against Amalek” in 1 Samuel 15, the Amalekites show up again in 2 Samuel 8, in King David’s time, and in 1 Chronicles 4, at which point the Scriptures tell us that they live “to this day.” Pretty bizarre genocide, that leaves the communities intact, wouldn’t you say? Nah… I suspect you’re getting too much of your information on Scripture from History Channel “documentaries” and humanist/atheist websites…

So… no. Christian morality isn’t “relative morality”. It’s a set of moral norms, which are to be applied to real circumstances.