The belief that each situation indicates its own ethics has grown during my lifetime, although it may not now be as strongly argued as it was during the last half of the twentieth century. Perhaps it has become a presupposition, accepted without much argument. We don’t tend to argue about our presuppositions. For example, few will raise any question about the presupposition that peace is a good thing. We accept the idea, without argument, that peace is the best alternative of related alternatives. It is something we believe in even when war is inevitable. Peace is a faith factor.
The concept that each situation dictates its own ethics is ancient, but in recent times it has gained broad rationale and lay approval, carrying the idea that opposition to it may be undemocratic, and wrong. The absolutes (specific affirmations of right and wrong) are treated as antiquated, but taken as pointing to approved directions. We now prefer flexibility. Paradoxically, perhaps in contradiction, this tendency comes with some degree of absoluteness. In various books, writers like Jean Paul Sartre helped to popularize situational ethics for the West. They especially liked the refugee woman who gave herself to a Russian guard during World War II so that she would be impregnated – cause for Russian authorities to release her to return home. Returning home she could care for her family and her husband would surely accept the new infant as his own. There was no defense that she might suffer with her compatriots; that perhaps the husband would not accept the child; and, that she would use the event of an illegitimate intercourse for personal and family benefit. A later story, The 25th Hour, argued that a child born in similar circumstances was not accepted. The simple husband was stunned by it all. In the end the story dangles.
It is interesting that many religious and secular analysts have latched on to situational philosophy. Many trace it to Soren Kierkegaard, the eminent Danish writer and philosopher, a man of large Christian faith. His careful methodology was to deal with various views as though they were true, but, like Solomon, he emerged at the end with an orthodox conclusion. His process has been confusing for some, and permits readers to take off in personal interpretations. So Kierkegaard has become a source of both profound theologians and committed atheists. If living, he might be appalled at what has been done in mixtures of his name, method, ideas and writings.
Scripture does not permit cavalier approaches to right and wrong. We note how often Scripture argues, in the situational context, when persons are saying in their hearts that something is right or wrong, which heart process may lead to wrong or confused ethics. We follow this humanistic tendency in Abraham (Gen 17:17); in Esau (Gen. 27:41); in Jereboam (I Kings 12:26); in the evil man (Psalm 10:6); in the fool (Psalm 14:1); in the wicked servant (Matthew 24:48). We are faced with the choice of situational ethics, basically a secular idea that the right conduct is personally indicated by, and in, each experience. Seeds of right are found there, but the firm guidelines given of God are found in Scripture and these lead every individual in ways of righteousness and peace. The Christian is called to live by Scripture – contextually understood to guide the reader. A large concern ought to be to avoid molding Scripture to personal patterns of evaluations and feelings. Scripture is its own commentary, revealing itself in the whole revelation. We sacrifice its value in amending it rather than amending ourselves. At first blush this biblical orientation is sometimes distorted and misunderstood. Those living by the meanings of Scripture, fact and/or parable, do not imagine life without that word from God – no escape from faith and conduct. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020