Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: "situation ethics"
Message-ID: <7430@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Jun-84 20:29:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.7430
Posted: Fri Jun  8 20:29:15 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Jun-84 07:03:09 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 13

You know, with all this ranting and raving for and against "situation
ethics", you'd think that somebody would have told us what they were talking
about!  As far as I know, the term was coined by Joseph Fletcher, who wrote
a book I haven't read.  If I understand it aright the idea was supposed to
be that you couldn't decide what was right until you were in the situation.
In particular, any principles or rules are supposed to be infinitely
malleable.  What nonsense.  I think we've been presented with a false
dilemma:  "absolute moral rules" or "situation ethics".  I think that
"absolute moral rules" is a straw man set up by the situation-ers.  Anyone
who defends that straw man is walking into a trap.  And what a shame.
Situation ethics isn't even woth a response.
				--The aspiring iconclast,
				  Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink