Talk:Situational ethics

message: This article strikes me as a very NPOV article -- I am sure there is a debate among philosophers about moral relativism and moral absolutism.  But to call "situational ethics" an oxymoron is to claim that "ethics" can only be absolute.  If there are "situational ethicists," that claim must be wrong, right?  Can anyone who knows philosophy or 20th century European intellectual history sort this out? Slrubenstein
: The nature of ethics is the same as the nature of any philosophy.  The philosophy is not the same thing as what someone claims about the philosophy. Philosophy can't be tested using scientific method so those who pursue its study should prepare themselves for a long journey.  Oddly, the same statement applies to discussion of religion.  In fact, preceding "ethics" with "Situational" is valid, in the same way preceding "ethics" with "religion" is valid.  "Ethics" isn't so much about ideas as it is about the principles that guide behavior.  To put it another way, to fit the definition of an "ethic" that isn't situational (aka personal), what is the guide that determines "ethical"?  As the definition quoted by RLent explains, the guide is the governing entity of interest.  (Group, community -- religion, etc).
: The article will likely always appear to lack NPOV if it contains philosophical discussion.  Opinion presented as truth (at least in this article) is actually philosophical discussion for the reason explained in the definition RLent posted.  This can (should be) corrected. To do this, write the article's content in the third person. When writing, refer to what another person thinks, then provide a verifiable citation that identifies how you know what this other person believes.
: This article might differ from an article that isn't about Philosophy.  The best way to explain this is probably by defining what "Philosophy" means. However, in this one case, I prefer the joke someone told me.   Question: "What is the difference between a Philosopher and a Mathematician?"  Answer: "A trash can".  The answer (explained) is "All a philosopher needs is paper and pencil.  A mathematician needs paper, pencil and a trash can."
: + Kernel.package  (please see comment entitled, "Article lacks NPOV -- which means it lacks verifiable citations".)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.95.72 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled comments

message: This article strikes me as a very NPOV article
   
: What is NPOV??
-- I am sure there is a debate among philosophers about moral relativism and moral absolutism.  
   
: No comment.
But to call "situational ethics" an oxymoron is to claim that "ethics" can only be absolute.  
   
: That is what the article says: that opponents to this notion are absolutists; that is exactly what they claim.
If there are "situational ethicists," that claim must be wrong, right?  
: Not necessarily. If I'm an atheist and claim that God does not exist, it doesn't make it true.
Can anyone who knows philosophy or 20th century European intellectual history sort this out? Slrubenstein
Is this topic only related to Christianity?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyLMH (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  situational ethics 

message: I strongly agree that the two articles should be merged - the two ethical theories are one and the same.
Agreed.  I noticed the merge banner in the situation ethics page but not the situational page.  The Situation Ethics article is much more extensive and established.  The Situational article should be merged into the Situation Ethics article or disappear entirely.
I agree as well.  The Situational page specifically cites Fletcher, and therefore appears to be the same as this more in-depth discussion.Aramink 02:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: According to a recent dictionary, The New World Dictionary of American English, situation ethics is:
“a system of ethics according to which moral rules are not absolutely binding but may be modified in the light of specific situations.”
Ethics refers to:
“the system or code of morals of a particular person, religion, group, profession, etc.”
A code of morals not absolutely binding which may be modified in the light of specific situations raises three questions.  First, who has the authority to determine if the situation warrants modification of the rules?  Second, to what extent may the rules be modified?  Third, is such a system even viable; situation ethics is primarily a code of exceptions.  Since a system or code of morals is first of all a guide to decision making, what would be required to make situation ethics functional in the decision making process?  A population of only 300,000,000 demonstrates the major flaw of trying to establish this ethics of exceptions.
The moral code of situation ethics by its own definition must take into account each situation.  Since no two people are identical, and no two situations are identical, each day the system must provide, a standard of exceptions for right and wrong numbering 900,000,000,000,000,000(quadrillion).  If the mathematical set of subjects finds themselves in more than one situation a day, the 900 quadrillion increase.  If we ignore the personhood of all the subjects and can demonstrate 99.9999999999% of the situations were redundant the list of exceptions remains at a staggering 899,968.
Human capability, does not allow the assimilation and recall of 899,968 exceptions to any system.  Some computer modeling programs require a mere 80,000(thousand) commands.  The engineers running them demand six figure incomes.  Remember, for the engineers using the computer commands, it is fulltime job. These highly trained individuals could be expected to master less than 9% of the required number of exceptions to make situation ethics viable.  Most of us cannot even recite all the relatively few exceptions to the spelling and grammar rules of American English.
Situation ethics remains both un-teachable and un-learnable.  How then can it guide anyone in the decision making process?
The second question of how far a rule may be modified is not clear either.  If there are only ten degrees of modification accepted, the number of exceptions jumps to over 8,999,000.  Even super computers would be challenged to sift through eight million exceptions three hundred million times a day, to provide each person in 300 million one ethical answer a day.
And the first question raised by the definition of situation ethics demonstrates to the objective mind its most basic scientific flaw.  Who has the authority to determine if the situation warrants modification of the rules?  If moral rules are not absolutely binding, then no one has that authority.  Sociological Survival of the Fittest becomes the rule of right and wrong.  Whoever can dominate a given situation establishes right and wrong at their own whim.  Further, there is no higher moral code for the powerful to test their own conduct against.  The society is face with a default code of ethics:
Those who dominate can do no wrong.
Dan Bodenstab
October 16, 2006
There may indeed be a great many permutations. But we don't need to know every possible situation in advance. It is absolutism that requires knowing everything in advance, not situationalism. You say "Who has the authority to determine if the situation warrants modification of the rules?  If moral rules are not absolutely binding, then no one has that authority." The irony is since you reject considering the situation, you would have to say that under absolutism, no one has the authority to consider the situation. You then go on to rant about "survival of the fittest" and domination, which for you have no basis for accusing situationalism. Absolutism is simply unworkable. Absolutism would require that we never lie, not matter what the situation, for example.--RLent (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation Ethics 

message: I count five examples. --70.103.74.8 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fletcher's four examples? 

message: What does this phrase mean?  "which Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels of the New Testament" 
The Gospels were written some time later, and about Jesus not by him.  I know it's pedantic, but the explanation sort of doesn't make sense unless that is clarified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.184.37 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: In view of the above comments, it is good to see an experienced editor is now upgrading the article  to something more encyclopedic with a wider perspective. Qexigator (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Situational ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204100606/http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/situation.htm to http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/situation.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The two criticism sections need to be merged and expanded. Surely such a controversy prone idea has been criticised more. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism