Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: "situation ethics" Message-ID: <2909@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jun-84 08:34:27 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.2909 Posted: Mon Jun 11 08:34:27 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jun-84 01:38:29 EDT References: <7430@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 26 Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics did have one absolute: Love. In a given situation the more loving way is the right way. The problem with that rule is that it essentially lacks real content. One cannot know in advance of the situation what "love" entails. (A legislators nightmare.) On the side of absolute value systems, there are different variations. Norman Geisler outlines three biblically based ones in his book "Options in Contemporary Christian Ethics" (Baker). They are called "Unqualified Absolutism", "Qualified Absolutism", and "Graded Absolutism". Geisler defends that latter as being the most biblical and workable system and I think it is the one adhered to by a great many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians (whether they call it by name or not). Yet the idea many others have of an absolute value system is the first form (propounded by Augustine). Paul Torek is right. Absolutism (the popular understanding of it) and Situationism are false alternatives; if only because there is more than one brand of Absolutism. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world..." (John 1:9)