Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I did not suggest it. >the Bible suggested it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Situation Ethics
- Thread starter Messianic Israelite
- Start date
I did not suggest it. >the Bible suggested it.
"Christian Values" are all well and good -- unless they become inconvenient. In particular, inconvenient for society's movers and shakers.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi sun rise. Good morning.
My thoughts? Is murder moral? In the Kingdom of Yahweh, Yahshua the Messiah whose name shall be Yahzidkenu (Jeremiah 23:6) – a title which he will hold being the Prince of Peace - will issue the order that all beat their spears in to pruning hooks. To convert deadly weapons in to tools for use in agriculture. You can read this in scriptures like Micah 4:3. Yahweh doesn’t want people to fight, unfortunately in this world fighting becomes necessary to defend oneself.
The scriptures tell us in the Law that we are allowed to defend ourselves (Exodus 22:2-3). There was a comment that was made by a rabbi which was something like, if someone is coming to kill you, you better be sure you kill them first. At the same time, much of the martyrs in the New Testament resigned to the will of Yahweh and wouldn’t resist the encroachment of the men of violence who took their lives, following Yahshua’s example.
What I am trying to say is that we know from the Beatitudes that Yahweh loves peacemakers. We cannot be brawlers (1 Timothy 3:3). So to answer your questions:
Is murder moral? No
Is premeditating the taking of a human life always immoral? The Law gives room for those who are defending themselves. I don’t know if you know the story of Purim, but those Jews were allowed to defend themselves against those that were going to kill them and this was acceptable in Yahweh’s sight.
Is killing of the enemy in time of war moral? Ecclesiastes 3:8 says there is a time for peace and war, however, no New Testament believers should believe in war. For us New Testament believers, it is a time for peace, not war, as was in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Is killing someone who is killing a room full of people moral? Why kill them, why not simply immobilise them?
Is refusing to kill someone who will kill 50 people unless you take action moral? Haven’t you read 2 Kings 8:12? Elisha was confronted with a man who would do some abominable acts, kill a lot of people, though he hadn’t up to that point done anything like that. Elisha did not kill him but he did cry over the fact that he knew he would do those things. Course, weeping over the fact that someone will be the next Hitler isn’t going to save the people they would kill. We have to consider a few things with this one. Over in the U.S.A, many have gone on strike over law enforcement abusing their power and killing unarmed people. In one case I can think of, they mistook a colostomy bag for a gun and I’m sure you can think of other situations like this. If law enforcement had the law written on their hearts and minds, many of these police shootings wouldn’t happen and we wouldn’t need the All Lives Matter campaigns. How do we know someone is going to kill those 50 people? What is the evidence: if the evidence is indeed conclusive then perhaps this becomes a question of self-defence.
You forget the question, Should we issue the death penalty for abominable crimes, which the answer is yes because that is proven as a mechanism that Yahweh uses to destroy evil and deter others from following the same path.
So in terms of situation ethics, one is allowed to defend oneself and one’s own property. So it’s clear that the law shows us what we must do and we don’t have to say well it depends on the situation. It does depend on the situation, but the law has to be adhered to regardless and within the law there is room for manoeuvrability which is what the Cities of Refuge were all about.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi epronovost. I agree. But, even situation ethics have to be determined by the two great laws. Love for Yahweh and love for our neighbour, and love for Yahweh should be foremost as we read in Mark 12:30-31 These two laws don’t annul the other laws as many Chr-stians suggest, but they are which all other laws hang (Matthew 22:40).
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I have it this way:
Most, if not all people, have a conscience (moral intuition) which guides them morally. But it's only a guide. We are free to act morally or immorally.
We all have good and bad in our nature. But, if not stopped with force, those who are very bad will attack and gain power over the weak. So, they must be stopped.
Good, strong people have to stop them to protect the weak because there is no one else around to do it.
Our conscience (moral intuition) doesn't trouble us with guilt when we kill in self defense or to protect the weak. This tells us that our actions were moral.
As for obedience to authority, the only moral authority we have is conscience. Our duty is to follow the guidance of our conscience and ignore anyone who would mislead us, even those who mean well.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
No, they don't. I don't believe that Yahweh is anything else than a mythological character. I don't take direction or advices about morality and ethics from Yahweh than I take direction or advices from Achillis and Patroclus. In your case, maybe those two ideals are things you seek to observe as closely as possible at all time, but all your ethical decisions will rely on context and interpretation for, afterall, those two laws could come into conflict with one another. What if your neighbour is hated by Yahweh?
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
The OP presents an interesting take on the nature of situation ethics, but not one I am familiar with except in the context of misrepresentations of the concept. No matter. This is RF. Who would be such a party-pooper as to insist that if you are going to criticize situation ethics, you at least first make a reasonable effort to understand what it is that you are criticizing? By all means, carry on!
Hi Sunstone. What I am saying is that even when the situation may call for different ethics, those ethics should still be determined by the commandments in the Bible. As we know they are more that one commandment in the Bible, they are approximately 613 and within those laws are the means by which we can use to determine what we should do in any situation.
The situation ethics I refer to in the OP is abandoning the Law wholeheartedly - usually temporarily - to satisfy a specific situation.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Murder is always wrong because the word itself implies a wrongful killing. However, killing a person can be justified (and therefore not murder) depending on the situation.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Left Coast. Good morning. Good question. Yahshua healed on the sabbath as an example, and some people didn't like that as you can read on Luke 13:14. However, the apparent situation ethics which Yahshua had applied to healing someone on the Sabbath is that he actually used the Law to support his healing. It's acceptable on the sabbath day to save a sheep, or some animal from a pit if it had gotten trapped in one, or on the sabbath to loose one's 'ox or his *** from the stall, and lead him away to watering' so why wouldn't it be lawful to heal a person who is sick? The Pharisees had got it wrong and that's where their uncalled for 'rigidness' came from. The situation ethics that the world applies to situations is not Yahweh's way. We have a Law and we go to that Law for direction. If we can't observe a law fully for some reason, then we do the best job we can and this is acceptable with Yahweh.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi IndigoChild. Interesting. Thanks for that. I found it enlightening. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one but you have given me a lot to think about. For example, I know many who came to the New World on ships and some starved to death. Others found unclean creatures and rodents to eat such as rats and were kept alive because of this. Can I condemn this? Well, in order to be strong spiritually I have to take a stand and say it was wrong. I may have to give up my life for the truth some day. I don't have the luxury of entertaining the situation ethics that the world does. In my mind it's a question of salvation. In terms of doctors working in the hospitals on Shabbat, I don't believe in that and I know I'll probably be insulted for saying so. Well, I speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may. Course, the unbelievers are free to work on the Sabbath Day. If someone became ill, or hurt, the doctors in the community would see to them as best they can. In the Kingdom, all will be commanded to rest on the Sabbath Day. But this thread, and your post has given me a lot to think about.
Job 13:8 says: "Will ye show partiality to him? Will ye contend for Elohim?" I don't believe I have to try and prove Yahweh is right. I believe that by being impartial and consider what everyone says and look at things from more than one perspective, I will come to a greater knowledge of Yahweh and what He stands for so I will consider what you have said.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Joe. Good morning. An example of situation ethics allowing the killing of an innocent person could be (say) a kidnapper who has you and your family at gunpoint and tells you that if you don't kill an innocent bystander that they will kill you and your family. Is each moral situation a unique moral problem, or is it always covered by Yahweh's Law? I would say Yahweh's Law covers all moral dilemmas. It's how we can prove that the Law is divine.
As I mentioned in post #23, self defense is an acceptable part of Yahweh's Law so there's no reason to think we need to come up with our own ethics just because we come across a situation that puts us in a tricky situation.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Good morning.
The "kidnapper" situation you describe is a moral dilemma which commonly offers two optional actions, both feel wrong according to conscience (moral intuition). However, since we must act, we normally select the option which does the least harm. The dilemma you created however adds the element of personal bias: I and my family are at risk.
If I killed the innocent person would a jury of unbiased minds find my act immoral? I don't think so.
I have no religion but I allow the possibility that a Creator might exist. If it does, and if we are given moral guidance, then we are all gifted with it at birth. Conscience (moral intuition) is a remarkable tool. It might be the best evidence of a Creator.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Valjean. Good afternoon. I made an exceptionally long reply to your post, but the site logged me out. My fault, so I will respond again but it will be less thorough.
Consequentialism is based on two principles: Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act. The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act. Revelation 6:9 says "And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of Yahweh, and for the testimony which they held:" Did these people adhere to consequentialism? In a sense, yes they did, because they "looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is Yahweh" (Hebrews 11:10) and will be resurrected.
What unspeakable things are you referring to that righteous people did in the Bible? Take Yahshua for example, name one thing that he did that was 'unspeakably evil', if you can. He only emptied himself of His royal splendour in heaven (Philippians 2:7) taking the form of a lowly servant, obeyingYahweh perfectly in his life on this earth becoming obedient even till death and died a cruel death on the tree of Cavalry to give us hope of eternal life. Yahshua was the most righteous person this earth has ever seen.
That's amusing. Aspiring to be robots. I did laugh at that. We're much more than robots because we choose to follow the right way. We're acting on principle and law, something that you don't seem to understand. When people break off and start making decisions apart from the law, they are at risk of making some terrible mistakes and not just pertaining to their eternal salvation.
Consequentialist principles are contained in the Law. They are consequences to breaking anyone of Yahweh's commandments both in this life and the life to come in the sense that we can, as a consequence of our actions, make it or be denied to the Kingdom of Yahweh. Jeremiah 21:8 talks about a way of life and way of death but we cannot presume that keeping the commandments is always the solution to living a long life. Many people have been martyred over the years and their life cut short. If commandment keeping ensured long life in this life, that wouldn't be the case. But it must be talking about the life after this life.
Consequentialism is based on two principles: Whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the results of that act. The more good consequences an act produces, the better or more right that act. Revelation 6:9 says "And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that had been slain for the word of Yahweh, and for the testimony which they held:" Did these people adhere to consequentialism? In a sense, yes they did, because they "looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose builder and maker is Yahweh" (Hebrews 11:10) and will be resurrected.
Again, have you ever considered that the Laws are both Divine Commands and consequentialist principles? I can think of examples in the Bible, especially the Proverbs I'm thinking of, where the Word tells us that they are serious consequences for violating the Law. One example is committing adultery, which Proverbs 6:32-34 reads 'Wounds and dishonor shall he get; And his reproach shall not be wiped away'. They are many consequences to violating the Law which transcend just the physical. This is because the Law is perfect and directs us in to a perfect, Kingdom way of life.
In Christian theology, legalism is a pejorative term referring to putting law above gospel. Although one might argue that those who observe the Biblical Law are legalists, it takes away the fact that we also believe in adhering to the Spirit of the Law. There is a spirit in the Law. Yahweh the law giver is spiritual and His law is meant to make us spiritual people. We follow the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6) but that can only be truly realised when you understand what the law is. You ask whether it is irreligious to adhere to principle rather than letter. People get principle wrong, and this is what I have found. The dietary laws for example. People say we can eat pork now because the Israelite didn't have refrigeration. The principle behind the dietary laws then is to be careful that we don't ingest anything that might give us food poisoning etc. How do we know that that is the reason why the dietary laws are in place? For all we know, the meaning could be deeper. For myself, I believe that yes, the dietary laws show us that Yahweh is concerned for our health and I can attest having never taken a day off work sick that I believe in them, but I believe the reason is much deeper than that. By people assuming they know the principle behind the law, they then have the freedom to discount that law as they see fit, which is wrong.
Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 10:16 says the law will be internalised within Yahweh's people, so I think you have that backwards. Do atheists really have internalized morals? Internalized suggests you would do them without even thinking. I don't think this is the case for many atheists. As I said, when push comes to shove : - and this I found to be true several times, even during this virus.
Unlike robots, we obey the Word of Yahweh because we want to obey. We have a willing heart and this is what Yahweh wants. Not robots, but people who want to change themselves, to improve themselves from something sinful to something righteous. The desire has to come from within. We are flexible, but when it comes to the Law, 'we have to obey Yahweh rather than man' (Acts 5:29).
What unspeakable things are you referring to that righteous people did in the Bible? Take Yahshua for example, name one thing that he did that was 'unspeakably evil', if you can. He only emptied himself of His royal splendour in heaven (Philippians 2:7) taking the form of a lowly servant, obeyingYahweh perfectly in his life on this earth becoming obedient even till death and died a cruel death on the tree of Cavalry to give us hope of eternal life. Yahshua was the most righteous person this earth has ever seen.
That's amusing. Aspiring to be robots. I did laugh at that. We're much more than robots because we choose to follow the right way. We're acting on principle and law, something that you don't seem to understand. When people break off and start making decisions apart from the law, they are at risk of making some terrible mistakes and not just pertaining to their eternal salvation.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Milton Platt. How are you? No we don't believe in military service, and they are a number of Chr-stian groups that won't serve in the military. You saw what Yahshua said in Matthew 26:53 "Or thinkest thou that I cannot beseech my Father, and he shall even now send me more than twelve legions of angels?".
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
Hi Joe. Interesting. Well I would say there is the possibility that even after killing that innocent bystander, the kidnappers wouldn't hold to their part of the deal, even though they gave their solemn word that they would do so. Then how do you think that a jury of unbiased minds would find your act? The Law of Yahweh prevents us from making those potential mistakes. It is interesting that you say a conscience is the best evidence for a Creator though. I never really thought about that. What would you say of those that don't have a conscience? Does that prove the Adversary, Satan exists, in your opinion.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I don't think the jury's verdict would change. Since we don't have crystal balls to see the future, the action was based only on the possibility that the kidnappers would not keep their word.
How?
There's no evidence that people are born without a conscience. Recent research found that the criminally insane know the difference between right and wrong, they just don't care. But people are born without arms and legs, so it's possible I suppose. But no, if its true, it means nothing. I don't believe Satan exists.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Sociopaths/Psychopaths have no conscience. They learn from being taught that certain things are right and wrong. However, they do not incorporate the knowledge internally--as you said, they just don't care. They are only concerned with not getting caught. They have no feelings of remorse, no pangs of conscience, when they do what is wrong.
While some are made, as many or more are born. Their brains are physiologically different.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Yes, I've been reading the same opinions of psychologists that you have for years but I haven't seen replicated research to support that position. Have you?
The only research I've seen was on a website of Jonathan Haidt. The study found that sociopaths did indeed have a conscience. They simply act like they don't because they don't care. I'm not arguing that the issue is closed, however. One study proves nothing.
I'll add that psychologists can't be trusted on morality issues since they still are taught in Psych 101 that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. That isn't true according to Haidt and many others who find that we make those judgments intuitively. We use reason to explain them after-the-fact.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The whole point of a conscience is that it cares. If you don't care, you lack a conscience. A conscience is NOT the same thing as knowing right from wrong. It's the little voice that tells you, "Don't do it! Don't do it!" That's caring. Psychopaths have stunted feelings in general, with the exception of anger (they mimic the feelings of others in order to fit in). That may be the key.
If you run a google search on "research psychopaths conscience" and/or "journal psychopaths conscience" you will come across many good articles and only a few that make the claim they have a weak conscience but a conscience.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
We aren't going to agree on this. Conscience (moral intuition) is the only way we have to discern right from wrong. However, it's merely a guide. We can choose to follow its guidance or ignore it.
From their behavior, we know that sociopaths either a) lack the same moral intuition (conscience) as the rest of us or b) they lack the empathy for others which would influence them to do the right thing.
It could be either.
I agree that your position is the popular one among psychologists but they have no research supporting that. It's an unsupported claim.