Note: What follows is short and basic, a handout for a class and not intended to be read as a fully complete examination of the question.
Situational ethics and moral relativism are detested submissions to the ways of the world for people who demand and believe in moral certainty, particularly when they are sure of what certainty is according to their interpretation of “the plain meaning” of Holy Scripture. It would be simple if everything was a question of right or wrong, good or bad, but that’s not how life works. To be sure, there are many situations that are clearly right or wrong, good or bad. We know them well. Don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, etc. and we have a pretty clear idea of what is meant. Mostly we are on solid ground, but if you have read the book or seen the play Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, you know the question is sometimes not so simple.
Sometimes the question is not between good and bad, but between two bad choices, one of which must be made. Something bad is going to happen. Which bad thing is the least immoral or least unethical? Other situations present us with two goods. We must choose one. That means something good will happen, but something equally good will not. We are not often required to make the choice between two things in real life. The more usual problem is many goods and many bad competing with each other, in various shades of goodness or badness. What might be an obvious good for some people might be taken as an equally less good, or not good at all, for others.
Life gets even more complicated in the context of world ethnic and tribal conflicts fueled by lust for power, fear of loss, and nationalistic pride. What is moral or ethical becomes difficult to unravel. A glaring example is warfare in the Middle East. Clearly there is a great deal of evil happening, but what is the correct moral thing to do, and who should do it? What are the hoped for goods each side desires? How can each side accept the possible good even if it is not all that is desired? Can they trust that failing to get everything does not mean accepting something bad or evil?
Here at home it seems the American mind has been indoctrinated to believe that social goods are in limited supply. That idea creates a zero sum mindset in which there can only be winners and losers. There can never be winners and winners. It promotes aggressive office to get more for oneself and equally aggressive defense to keep anyone from getting what one has. The result is normalized, unethical, and immoral behavior, justified by appeals for God’s approval.
It would be easier if we had a set of rules to live by so we could say if we follow the rules we are moral people. What God has given us are not rules but principles. Often with inadequate information we have to work out how those principles are to guide the decisions we must make. Philippians 2:12 – “Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
God, it seems, expects us to take some responsibility for the decisions we make, trusting we will not go far astray if we do the best we can living by holy principles. Not satisfied with that, we have too often set up our own rules, subordinated them to holy principles, and claimed moral certainty for ourselves. God warned us it wouldn’t work well when ‘he’ spoke through the mouth of Isaiah: “I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said ‘Here I am, here I am to a nation that did not call on my name. I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good following their own devices.” (Isa. 65)
Let’s face it. We live in a world of moral uncertainty. We may not always get it right, but in doing the best we can to live under the guidance of the principles God has ordained for us, we can be confident that we are not being misled.