RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is the issue where Situation Ethicist Joseph Fletcher nailed John Warwick Montgomery.
Which action do you take in a situation where you are presented with two ethical norms, norms grounded in God's revelation, yet choosing one norm would conflict the other norm.
The usual example is the Rahab one. But because so many evangelicals give really bad responses to that, I will choose another one.
In WW2 Jewish women were promised freedom upon the condition they have sexual relations with the guards. If they refused, however, their relatives would be tortured and killed.
Adultery on one hand, murder on the other.
Christian ethicists have usually opted for one of three responses:
1. Tragic Moral Choice; This was Montgomery's response. Its been a while since the Fletcher/Montgomery transcript was in front of me, but Montgomery took this one on the chin. He said we should break God's law to obey God's law, and then ask forgiveness later. Fletcher made short work of this.
2. Go with the Greatest Good; this is Norman Geisler's position. One should choose the highest good in the situation. The only problem with this is that it is the same thing as choosing the lesser of two evils (think: Vote Republican--sorry, that was a cheap shot). Also, by what standard (ok, no theonomy talk)--by what metaethical evaluation do you determine what is the highest good? Saying "love" for instance is worse than useless. Love undefined by God's law is meaningless.
3. Deny the dilemma; deny that these are the only two avalaible alternatives. For instance, Christ was tempted in all things like us yet remained without sin. "This situation" is included under "all things." Therefore, there is a way out of this situation without violating God's law.
[Edited on 10--18-06 by Draught Horse]
Which action do you take in a situation where you are presented with two ethical norms, norms grounded in God's revelation, yet choosing one norm would conflict the other norm.
The usual example is the Rahab one. But because so many evangelicals give really bad responses to that, I will choose another one.
In WW2 Jewish women were promised freedom upon the condition they have sexual relations with the guards. If they refused, however, their relatives would be tortured and killed.
Adultery on one hand, murder on the other.
Christian ethicists have usually opted for one of three responses:
1. Tragic Moral Choice; This was Montgomery's response. Its been a while since the Fletcher/Montgomery transcript was in front of me, but Montgomery took this one on the chin. He said we should break God's law to obey God's law, and then ask forgiveness later. Fletcher made short work of this.
2. Go with the Greatest Good; this is Norman Geisler's position. One should choose the highest good in the situation. The only problem with this is that it is the same thing as choosing the lesser of two evils (think: Vote Republican--sorry, that was a cheap shot). Also, by what standard (ok, no theonomy talk)--by what metaethical evaluation do you determine what is the highest good? Saying "love" for instance is worse than useless. Love undefined by God's law is meaningless.
3. Deny the dilemma; deny that these are the only two avalaible alternatives. For instance, Christ was tempted in all things like us yet remained without sin. "This situation" is included under "all things." Therefore, there is a way out of this situation without violating God's law.
[Edited on 10--18-06 by Draught Horse]