[Adilegian]

[Adilegian]

[Adilegian]

Dracko,

I hadn't heard about situationism until you mentioned it in your post. I
checked out the Wikipedia article. You seem as though you know if its
summary is genial to the philosophy, so my understanding lies at your
censure.

The only aspect of situationism I'd go with is Joseph Fletcher's claim: "The
morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it
is performed." I don't think I'd support that in all circumstances, but it
seems to express well the impact that the context of an ethical decision has
on that decision's morality.

By "relevant morality," I only mean that we are often required to use power
in defense of a moral principle when that defense is also an attack upon an
equally important moral principle. (Reinhold Neibuhr is great on this
stuff.)

Example: a boy from a poor family needs to hold down a job selling
newspapers in order to help his family pay rent. He gets paid by commission,
so he needs to hold down a busy street corner. To secure the best corner, he
has to beat up and intimidate a competing paperboy.

The boy faces two conflicting moral principles, and one is more relevant to
him than the other. He can do what he must do in order to secure work and
help keep his family housed, or he can live non-violently. Both avenues
affirm the ideal of love. His decision between the two moral actions,
however, turns each one immoral.

The example isn't perfect, but I'm only bringing it up as a loose garment to
give a general shape to my meaning. Absolute morality would imply an
obviously correct solution to our problems, thereby leading to sure
judgment. Relevant morality--understanding the conflicting demands of two
moral decisions that preclude and impinge upon each other--leads to
discernment and appreciation for the impossibility of living in just
relation with everyone.
_________________