Who here understands the difference between moral relativism and situational ethics?

[B_Hickboy]

Raise your hand if you do.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I do, I do.

 

[B_Hickboy]

I do, I do.

Apple polisher. :tongue:

 

[Pecker]

:wavey:

 

[deleted213967]

I vote "No" on both.

Sue me!

 

[Gl3nn]

*Raises hand*

 

[got_lost]

:scratchchin:

*sits on hands*

 

[ManlyBanisters]

:scratchchin:

*sits on hands*

Moral relativism refers to the position that there is no moral absolute - that 'morality' can only be judged within the circumstances of the action. There is no 'universal good' nor a 'universal evil'.

Situational ethics refers to the position that the circumstances of any situation must be considered in any decision where ethics comes in to play.

Situational ethics allows for the possibility of a universal good (without requiring it) but states that the situation cannot be taken out of the equation. Moral relativism does not - the ethics can only be judged relative to the circumstances.

 

[Drifterwood]

I do, but I am only following orders.

 

[Principessa]

I know what situational ethics are. Never gave any thought to moral relativism.

 

[vince]

Yeah. I understand. What's the point?