Situational Ethics

Linkity link.

I'm in the mood for a philosophy discussion, thus, I stick forward my personal ethical system.

And in true TMA fashion, I look forward to its every flaw, pitfall and weakness being prodded.

So, what does everyone here think of it?

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

It's a bit vague...but I'm sort of close to situational ethics myself. I'm just not that absolute in my philosophical beliefs. Nevertheless, I have very little criticism to make.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Darn. I was hoping for a bunch of tropers to descend upon it and cut it apart. I like thinking, after all. It's nice to have a heated non-religion non-abortion debate every now and then.

I guess the vagueness itself could be called the flaw. That alone gives something to think about, I suppose.

edited 4th Mar '11 7:55:05 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Meh, should just go straight antinomian.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Dunno. I'm a utilitarian absurdest. Love is as good a reason as any I say. I mean, I wouldn't chose love. I think it is a bit of a crap emotion (I'm with tina turner) but I just don't have a lot of it in me.

edited 4th Mar '11 8:01:18 PM by Shrimpus

Okayyy...

I can agree with the idea that situation and context must figure into ethical decisions, not the blind following of existing principles. Ethical and moral decision making has to be bottom-up more than top-down. I can find greater goods than love to serve, though.

And before anyone drops the accusation, "need to take context and situation into account ≠ moral relativism". I don't know what criticisms you've heard TMA but that one shouldn't apply.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

What's better to serve than love? Just curious, not trying to start a debate (yet?).

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Than love? Coke.

For me? I'd go with learning and growth. I want everyone to reach their fullest potential, regardless of whether or not I love them.

But that's me, mind you. My personal code is kinda based on a paraphrase of Robert Kennedy's quote:

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I'm not seeing how this is supposed to be different from any other ethical principle. You still have a basic, axiomatic highest good (love), which you presumably aim to maximise in every given situation.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Part of situational ethic's purpose would be to love people anyways, regardless of whether or not you have reason to. Hence, I would would state that what you have put forward is part of the love goal. Helping others reach their fullest potential even if you don't like them is love, so far as I'm concerned. Specifically, it is of the highest kind, the "unconditional love" sort.

At the very least, this shows you have strong character, in my book anyhow.

edited 4th Mar '11 8:22:58 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

That's going into definitions of love, and down that path lies semantics. And madness. But mostly semantics.

Hmmm, should I open up a "go after the Radical Taoist's ethical code" thread, though? I was thinking of making something like that for my position on abortion.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Cocaine, or Coca Cola?

Love is good, I suppose.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

In the real world , laws can't be built on love. Love and kindness allow criminals to skate by and parasites to steal from the hard worker. Emotions are best left out of lawmaking.

We're discussing ethics and not legality here, but you have a point. The problem with taking love into consideration in ethics is the risk of clouded judgment. For which we have several tropes as a matter of fact.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Ideally, I think laws should be built on an ethical code (democracy obviously has to come first, though, in a democratic society). Not sure if "love" is the best one for the job; seems a little vague.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I support this line of thinking in some situations, while I oppose it in others. This reminds me of one of the teachings fielded in the Islamic world about how it's ok to lie to the infidel and go to any lengths, even such as consuming alcohol and other forbidden pleasures, if it is in the cause of advancing the Muslim cause. (I know this isn't blanket accepted by Muslims everywhere, just noting that it's similar. This could essentially be used as a cop-out on lots of behavior)

Always look for the situation that has the best outcome for the most people. And if that fails me, I just do what I believe is right, which varies... a lot. As for love, depends on how you define it I suppose.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

While situational ethics aren't necessarily relative, they do lend themselves readily to relativist positions. Personally, I practice a variation, which I don't think I specifically invented (I've heard the term somewhere else) but I'm not sure where. I call it Circumstantialist Rule Utilitarianism, created out of my violently aggressive loathing for Kantian Ethics, specifically his principle of Universalisation - which holds that if an action isn't acceptable in every possible situation, it isn't acceptable in any. Which is bollocks, frankly. Premeditated homicide and killing in self defence are still the same act of taking another human life, but are entirely different, ethically. To the strict Kantian, not so.

My own code uses a form of rule utilitarianism to serve as the basis for guiding principles to serve as precedents. In the vast majority of situations for example, killing will be wrong, as will stealing, etc, etc. Circumstantialism itself, as I define it, is that the circumstances dictate the best course of action in a situation. The problem being, an effective means of actually deciding on that basis. I have the innate belief that my moral compass is pointing in the right direction, and that I tend towards actions that could be agreed upon as moral by the majority in the majority of situations. Rule Utilitarianism providing guidance, I do cost benefit analyses and apply my own judgement to the situation.

It's rather relativist and couldn't possibly apply to the greater population, but it's a code that does me fine. I would quite like to write an essay on it though, since I can explain it better than the above does!

Situational Ethics itself is fundamentally rooted in Christian logic, and I'm not very fond of using religion as a basis for morality. I'll let your imaginations take that further, but suffice to say I'm somewhat fervent in that regard.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.

That's a complete bastardization of Kantian philosophy. Kantian ethics wouldn't consider "killing a person" as an action worthy of moral consideration in that sense — it would consider "self defense" one action and "murder" another. Is self defense acceptable, even when it results in the death of your attacker? (If yes, then you're okay with killing in self defense. If no, then you're a pacifist.) Is murder acceptable if you have a really, really good reason; say they made you watch while they gleefully tortured your whole family to death? (If yes, then murder is acceptable for lesser offenses as well; if no, then murder is never acceptable.)

I'm not even Kantian, for the record; I don't like its inflexibility either. But it deserves way more credit than you're giving it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I've read the passage in Kant where he spells out his categorical imperative, and it often seems like the only way he can get around the failures of it is by very careful phrasing.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Holy shit I have just found people who operate on CLAMP morality!

... Well so much for that...

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."