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