Can Christians believe that ethics are situational?

Question

I was reading in an Literary Education textbook that my wife has, which was bashing Christians. I thought textbooks were to be scientific and objective, but this textbook threw that out the window. But that doesn't matter, the book said that Christians are anti situational-ethics. I have never heard that before.

I am a Christian, and I heartdly believe that sometimes ethics are determined by the situation. I think this is seen even in the Bible itself. I mean Rahab was considered a follower of God after LYING.

So what do you think, is it possilbe to be a Christian and pro situatiual ethics?

I am not saying that ethics are purely determined by situation.

Why do you think I am a situational Christian? In what circumstances have you seen me not be a Christian?

For thos who say Ethics are non situational....
What about the example of Rahab in the Bible?

And for those who make a distinction between Ethics and Morals?
Is not lying an ethic or a moral? How does this conclusion fit in with the example of Rahab?

Answer 1

Are there absolute rights and wrongs - yes

But there are many grey areas where a person must make the best choice from several imperfect ones.

So I say yes it is possible to be a Christian and pro situational ethics ... within reasonable bounds.
Good example - murder - Ectopic pregnancy - abort or you will probally loose mother and child.

Answer 2

I try not to talk about ethics and morals. This is because I think that it's probable for men to convince other men that they are ethical and moral, but not God. And God is the one I am concerned with on how I am looked at.

It would seem to me that some Christians spend much of their time on this subject. I choose not to. Does that make me anti situational- ethics? I really don't know. Nor do I really care, But I do care about whether or not I am trusting God. Jesus is my focus.

Perhaps all that makes me unsophiticated. But I am only interested in being sophisticated enough to figure out how to communicate on this and other sites the word of God. Is that moral? Is it Ethical? I have no idea, and I really don't care what it might be called-- I am only interested in serving God.

EDIT: You mean Rahab lying for the Hebrew spies? Yeah, James was wrong about being saved by works. The harlot trusted what they said and put some of that trust in the Hebrew God. Yes, faith saved her. It was not for being moral or ethical-- whatever the distinction may be.

Answer 3

Please define situational ethics. Are you using the story of Rahab as an example of situational ethics?
It is true she lied, but in what way do you think God approved of that lie. How do you know that He didn't demand an accounting of that lie?
My point is this Rahab lied, how do we know that God wouldn't still have found a way to protect the two men, and rescue Rahab, even if she had not been deceptive.
Are you suggesting that just because we do not see the justice that God meted out to Rahab that it means He wanted her to lie?
Later on David kills a man to cover up his affair and the wrongfully concieved child by Bathsheba. Does the fact that this child came to be King Soloman demonstrate that God approved of David's behavior? No, God demanded of David a price for his wrongdoing.
God is able to make all thing work to the good for those who love Him who are called according to His purpose.
Do not be decieved into thinking that situational ethics are what is really happening when we see such things as Rahab, and some of the other illustrations used in other answers.
It is not the use of "situational ethics" which makes things okay.
It is God's awesome power to overcome evil with His goodness, that changes the situations from bad to good.

Answer 4

I think it is possible for Christians to be pro-situational ethics. The story of Rahab is a prime example. But we can use modern examples as well:
1. A Christian police officer, who shoots a criminal, in order to save his (or her) own life, or the lives of others.
2 A Christian who's in the military, who kills an enemy in war to save their own life, or the lives of others.
3. The people who hid Anne Frank's family from the gestapo.
4. Those who participated in the Underground Railroad.
5. Le Resistance in France during WWII.

If good is ultimately done by committing acts of evil, the evil acts are then excused. At least, that's what I think.

Answer 5

I don't believe in situational ethics in the sense they are meaning. It's more that there are often multiple ethical factors at play and we must choose the combination that seems to be "most ethical" overall.

Ex. It is very wrong to kill, but your country has just been bombed by another. In order to keep many millions more people from dying in a long war, you nuke this other country (killing only a few thousand people). Here it isn't that the ethic of killing being wrong doesn't apply, but that the ethic of saving more peoples' lives overall takes precedence.

Answer 6

Ask a Christian this question:

"Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to save a starving child?"

If they say "no", they most likely believe in situational ethics. Most Christians believe in this, as do most people in general.

Also, I will agree that there is overwhelming Biblical support for the idea of situational ethics. Consider, for example, that Christians believe that God had different expectations for the pre-Christ Jews than for the post-Christ Jews, even though the only thing that had changed was the situation. Christians do not believe that we have to keep kosher, etc., even if the Jews once did; this means that ethics are, at least to an extent, situational.

Answer 7

A clear line must be drawn between the terms "ethics" and "morals." Unfortunately, the two are used and interpreted synonymously, but in fact, they are completely different.

Ethics is an interpretation of appropriate behavior. Such judgments can be made by an individual, an organization, or by society; but they are the still application of mere opinion and personal evaluation.

Morals, however, are concrete. They constitute the ultimate in reality and are not subject to interpretation. Granted, one's moral views may differ from another, but in every case, one view is correct and all others are not.

Ethics are certainly subject to change based on situation, as they are subject to anything else which might change individual or group values.

Morals can be situational too, but not based on the views of mankind.

Answer 8

We are all situational, some to a lesser degree than others. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. We all adapt to our environments and situations, making choices that perhaps in another circumstance we would not make.

We say that we follow the bible, love Jesus, obey the commandments, etc.... and yet a lot of talk is just that - talk - and we are really and actually governed by our environment and our particular situation.

It is a life long struggle....

May God help us...


god bless

Answer 9

There is a BIG difference between ethics and morals. An ethical man knows it is wrong to have sex with another man's wife. A moral man won't do it anyway. Most achedemia has set out to destroy Christianity. It all began with the BIG COMMIE, Franklin Roosevelt. The country begun the long, slow slide to hell when he took office. YBIC

Answer 10

I don't believe in Situational ethics because there is right and their is wrong. But we do mess up which makes us Human. We then need to ask for forgiveness and that basically clears the slate so it is as if we never committed that crime. Christ already took that penalty.