Arbilad's situational ethics

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Arbilad's situational ethics

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I'm not arbilad, nor do I play him on TV

I would interpret situational ethics as ethics that can change and be modified according to the relative conditions of the situation. Or in other words, one's sense of what is right and wrong is not only what feels right to them, but what feels right to them given the moment.

Situational wisdom I don't see as the same thing. I would say that this is exhibiting the correct level and amount of wisdom according to the unique situation.

I think in the case of King Solomon that after he exercised situational ethics instead of applying situational wisdom in his own conduct over the years, he lost the ability to provide sound situational wisdom and his decisions became more and more situationally ethical.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Wikipedia has a fairly academic treatment of situational ethics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_ethics

I believe most of us here would assert that the Holy Ghost guides individuals to sometimes decide and act in a way that would seem, from an outside perspective, contrary to law, tradition, or general guidance from church leadership. This is usually voiced in the argument I've heard often at Nauvoo: I'm entitled to individual guidance, and that may go against counsel from the bishop, etc. I've even seen Nephi's slaying of Laban used in support of this view.

Now maybe that's something different than situational ethics. However, unless I'm misconstruing Arbilad's comments, he implied that guidance given to one person that differed from guidance given to another, at least in political considerations, constituted situational ethics.

Just because a person is a democrat doesn't mean that person can't receive and act upon divine guidance. Just because a person is a republican doesn't mean that person can't receive and act upon divine guidance. Both political ideaologies contain truth, yet both are far removed from God's inspired plan for His children. To our limited understanding, it may seem their actions are diametrically opposed. Maybe from God's perspective, they aren't. And so God sends guidance to each honest seeker on how that person can best use the talents with which He blessed them to build His kingdom.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

Wikipedia has a fairly academic treatment of situational ethics here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_ethics

Isn't that essentially what I said, even if unacademically?

Roper wrote:

I believe most of us here would assert that the Holy Ghost guides individuals to sometimes decide and act in a way that would seem, from an outside perspective, contrary to law, tradition, or general guidance from church leadership. This is usually voiced in the argument I've heard often at Nauvoo: I'm entitled to individual guidance, and that may go against counsel from the bishop, etc. I've even seen Nephi's slaying of Laban used in support of this view.

In the case where we have seen individuals act in a way that would seem, from an outside perspective, to be contrary to law or guidance from church leadership (when given under the mantel of their stewardship), I think we have the right privately to put the question to The Lord if the other person actually was directed to do so by way of the Holy Ghost. We can ask for a personal confirmation, much like Nephi received in regards to the visions of his father.

Otherwise, it all devolves into a relative thing of "Well, I'm justified in doing this or that because The Holy Ghost told me so, and you can't negate that... so there." That is then clearly situational ethics with the abuse of supposed divine backing.

Now maybe that's something different than situational ethics. However, unless I'm misconstruing Arbilad's comments, he implied that guidance given to one person that differed from guidance given to another, at least in political considerations, constituted situational ethics.
Just because a person is a democrat doesn't mean that person can't receive and act upon divine guidance. Just because a person is a republican doesn't mean that person can't receive and act upon divine guidance. Both political ideaologies contain truth, yet both are far removed from God's inspired plan for His children. To our limited understanding, it may seem their actions are diametrically opposed. Maybe from God's perspective, they aren't. And so God sends guidance to each honest seeker on how that person can best use the talents with which He blessed them to build His kingdom.

I don't know. Is God so concerned about giving explicit guidance to every facet of politics, or does he teach correct principles and expect us to govern ourselves, being answerable to how we live and incorporate the correct principles? Perhaps the thought is that truth is inviolate, and that when it is applied correctly, there is only one valid interpretation...

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

I don't know. Is God so concerned about giving explicit guidance to every facet of politics, or does he teach correct principles and expect us to govern ourselves, being answerable to how we live and incorporate the correct principles? Perhaps the thought is that truth is inviolate, and that when it is applied correctly, there is only one valid interpretation...

Ask and ye shall receive. I believe that an LDS candidate is more likely to be asking on a consistent basis. Perhaps that's a misconception, but that's my feeling on the matter.

Truth is inviolate, and there is only one valid interpretation--God's. So we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to testify of truth. So once again, we're left with the conundrum that extends beyond politics (and I've experienced this in other relationships): What does it mean when two people receive guidance that seems in oppposition to each other? Is one of them right and the other wrong? Who has the perspective of God and can recognize and understand all truth as circumscribed into one great whole?

With my limited understanding, I'll err on the "situational" side and affirm that my guidance is true for me, and your guidance is true for you, rather than on the "judgement" side and affirm that one of us (probably you) can't possibly be in possession of the Truth.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

With my limited understanding, I'll err on the "situational" side and affirm that my guidance is true for me, and your guidance is true for you, rather than on the "judgement" side and affirm that one of us (probably you) can't possibly be in possession of the Truth.

Well, if it wasn't for the fact you already owe me a Texas sized can of whoop *$% from that unfortunate incident of offspring mistaken gender identity, I'd say you were taking the wimp's loophole for avoiding a fight...

What I found interesting about the article on situational ethics you linked to was basically a lot of the concept was not so much related to if an action is good or not, but whether an action which by itself may seem to be bad may actually be justified if it serves a higher purpose (or as in the article creates greater love for mankind in general). I think it is extremely rare we as individuals will ever be in a situation where this is going to be the case. We are rarely going to be commanded to smite the head off Laban in order to fulfill a commandment. I think for probably 99.9% of us, the means are going to be graded as much as the end. In fact, probably more so. Rather, the gospel teaches us to make up our mind well in advance to remain obedient when a "crisis" comes around the bend so that we don't have to question what to do at the moment. Perhaps that is where some feel others are following situational ethics because they do not feel they would choose the same way if in their shoes.

Now, the thing is, can we as individuals judge another righteously by only looking at the means they employ? Or should we only look at the ends they are pursuing? Or, is there something else altogether by which we can determine an individual is pursuing righteousness when their philosophies or pursuits do not mesh with our own?

Situational ethics, as the article describes, is ultimately a form of theology. So, that begs the question, is it a philosophy of man, or is it found to be part of the restored gospel of Christ? I go with the former, that it is a philosophy of man mingled with interpretations of scripture.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Situational ethics, as the article describes, is ultimately a form of theology. So, that begs the question, is it a philosophy of man, or is it found to be part of the restored gospel of Christ? I go with the former, that it is a philosophy of man mingled with interpretations of scripture.

I'll agree with that analysis, Cat.

Now, the thing is, can we as individuals judge another righteously by only looking at the means they employ? Or should we only look at the ends they are pursuing? Or, is there something else altogether by which we can determine an individual is pursuing righteousness when their philosophies or pursuits do not mesh with our own?

*singing* Who am I to judge another when I walk imperfectly? - Hymn # 220

I think the key here is to judge our own actions, not other people. I have neither the ability nor the authority (thankfully) to determine if an individual is pursuing righteousness. I can, however, seek guidance to know if my own course is in harmony with the Gospel as I understand it.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Today while in the celestrial room, I had this same impression... we have to make the best choices we can make with the light of christ we are given. If that means going against a crowd of your fellow saints now and again... well... go for it. And heck, if I judge you... well, you can always forgive me... :)

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Generally there are too many variables to be able to make a one to one comparison. For instance, it is not only possible, but likely, that Roper and Ray are inspired to punish their children in different ways. Heck, my Bishop was telling me that he has one child that he only needs to look at and they break down in tears, while another he can take all the privileges away from them and they still won't act right. There are too many variable there to be able to make a straight comparison. What's right for one kid may be wrong for another, for a whole host of reasons.
There are some things, though, that can be compared. For instance, take the hypothetical example of two LDS judges both on the same circuit court of appeals. A case comes before them of a man convicted of armed robbery. One judge joins the majority opinion and says that the man is obviously guilty. The other dissents and says that the man is innocent. One of them is obviously wrong, because the man cannot be simultaneously innocent and guilty. Maybe he is guilty but should not be punished anyway. Maybe a lot of things. But two opposing opinions about a specific situation cannot both be right. Therefore, in this hypothetical example, one of the judges did not seek for and/or listen to the promptings of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost would not tell both judges opposing things. Truth doesn't work that way.
Also, people get too hung up on the rightness or wrongness of a specific act, and don't worry enough about principle. For instance, there is nothing wrong with having a bowel movement while sitting on the toilet. There is something wrong with choosing to have a bowel movement while in sacrament meeting. The nature of the act didn't change. It's the guiding principle that determines what is right and wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with a bowel movement. But the correct principle is that you take care of such a need in a way that is as hygienic as possible and causes as little inconvenience to others as possible. In one instance that principle was maintained, in the other it was not.
We are imperfect, so even when we seek to be guided by the spirit we will make mistakes. But if we set out to learn the principles, we can get closer to the ideal. I honestly believe that if we had all knowledge, we would all make the same decisions in situations requiring a question of principles. We don't, of course. But we should work towards it. After all, Zion is when we are of one mind and heart. We are told to work towards that.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Poo crystals...bowel movements...

Freudian pschoanalysis would suggest...

Sorry. It's unkind of me to have fun at the moderator's expense.

I love you man! (That makes it okay, doesn't it?)

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm not going to defend the philosophy of situational ethics because, as Cat pointed out, it is a philosophy of man mingled with scripture. On closer examination, situational ethics appears to be nothing more than postmodernism dressed up in Sunday clothes.

The core issue, however, still merits examination.

Arbilad, I'll use your example of the judges to better illustrate my position. In fact, it's a very good example because the decisions of judges can and do get overturned on appeal. My contention is this: Both judges may be right, because both judges were acting upon the light and knowledge they had received up to that point. Both may have sought and received divine guidance in their decision. Both may have been founded in truth as it was known.

An example from LDS history: For many years, it was Gospel truth, it was the will of the Lord, that persons of certain racial heritage were not authorized to have the Priesthood conferred upon them. The situation changed in 1978. Here are the words of Elder McConkie:

“... Forget everything that I have said, or that President Brigham Young or ... whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. ... It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about [this] matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. ... As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.” ("All Are Alike Unto God," in Charge to Religious Educators (1982), pp.152-155)

From Arbi's post:

But two opposing opinions about a specific situation cannot both be right. Therefore, in this hypothetical example, one of the judges did not seek for and/or listen to the promptings of the Holy Ghost, because the Holy Ghost would not tell both judges opposing things. Truth doesn't work that way.

In the case of the 1978 revelation, truth worked precisely that way.

I imagine, as Arbi stated, that when we become of one heart and one mind, when we understand all of God's truth as He understands and is the source of it, then maybe we will make the same decisions on matters of principle. Until that time, understanding of truth, and actions based on correct principles, are in every way subject to the light and knowledge we have received.

-- Edited by Roper at 06:19, 2007-01-10

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

That is a very good point there Roper...

My contention is this: Both judges may be right, because both judges were acting upon the light and knowledge they had received up to that point. Both may have sought and received divine guidance in their decision. Both may have been founded in truth as it was known.

Even in instances as mundane as a bishopric praying about extending a specific call to a specific individual, they are actually only praying for a confirmation based on the light and knowledge they have to that specific instance. At one point, they may receive yes, and then later a no. The Lord does not fill them in on information they are missing necessarily. It is a clear yes or no. I experienced this once as an assistant clerk when asked to sit in as a substitute to the clerk for Bishopric meeting, and my Dad who was a Bishop for a good number of years and also in the Stake presidency for several years had explained that to me one time when a call came my way shortly after getting married that I was not comfortable with.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'll admit I only have part of the picture--a small and idealistic part, at that.

On the "Bush's Plan" thread, I expressed quite strongly my criticism for Harry Reid and his comments about our involvement in Iraq. I suppose that had I strictly applied the perspective I have stated on this thread, I would have reached another conclusion--I shouldn't judge Reid or his political views because he's acting on the best light and knowledge he has. In this case, at least for me, inquiry seemed removed from application.

Arbi is right--there are times when we must judge, and there are principles that should guide us. Reconciling that understanding with the teachings of Jesus on judgement requires a balance that I still haven't developed in many cases.

arbilad · Head Chef

I believe that the JST version of the quote from Jesus is something to the effect of "Judge not unrighteously".
Of course, the catch is that none of us judge righteously all the time.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

I believe that the JST version of the quote from Jesus is something to the effect of "Judge not unrighteously".
Of course, the catch is that none of us judge righteously all the time.

Which unfortunately has gotten twisted around to where it is evil for people to judge (or discern) at all. But, it doesn't change the fact that people have to make decisions, judge, discern, and discriminate on a daily basis. Enter the invention of the theology of situational ethics as a way to reconcile that with the also false notion that all judging is wrong.

So, do two catch twenty-two's equal zero or forty-four?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Elder Oaks delivered an excellent treatment of the subject in an address entitled "'Judge Not' and Judging."

Elder Oaks states that there are two kinds of judgments--final and intermediate. We are not authorized to make final judgements. For intermediate judgements, there are several guiding principles.

Here is one of the summary paragraphs:

In the intermediate judgments we must make, we should take care to judge righteously. We should seek the guidance of the Spirit in our decisions. We should limit our judgments to our own stewardships. Whenever possible we should refrain from judging people until we have an adequate knowledge of the facts. So far as possible, we should judge circumstances rather than people. In all our judgments we should apply righteous standards. And, in all of this we must remember the command to forgive.

The entire article is here:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1999.htm/ensign%20august%201999.htm/judge%20not%20and%20judging.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Somewhat related to this discussion...

Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.

...from the recently revamped Church Statement of Political Neutrality.

arbilad · Head Chef

What that says to me is that no one should assume that a politician makes the correct choices just because he is a church member, nor does the church require members who are politicians to vote in a specific way.

I think that both are veryy reasonable positions.