To study ethics and to break down the different approaches one must look at the nonabsolutisms such as antinomianism, situationism and generalism. These three approaches define different perspectives that one may use when coming to an ethical decision. The three approaches will be defined and examples will be given of each of these approaches. Concluding with an analysis of the deficiencies and assets of each and which I feel is the strongest or weakest.
Antinomianism has been described by Geisler (2010), as “against/instead of law, holds that there are no binding moral laws, that everything is relative” (p.22). This approach is said to have been brought about because of movements in history that influenced this approach. The movements of processism, …show more content…
In situationism it is said to be between legalism and antinomianism because there is only one law, the law of love as described by Joseph Fletcher. In this situation, he describes it between the two because with legalism decisions are based upon rules and regulations. With a legalist approach one would still execute someone if they were breaking the law, they would choose over law than for love. On the antinomian approach decisions are sporadic and have no absolute. This view would say there is no norm even with love. Therefore, situationism said to be between the other two (Geisler, 2010, p. 36). An example given that helps to summarize it by Geisler (2010), says “act responsibly in love. Literally everything else without exception, all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in any situation” …show more content…
They need norms and know that morals are not self-attained that there must be something that guides human behavior. When given a situation, the decision is made based on what will produce the greatest good out of this situation. Although, there are decisions based off what is good for all they do have a set of standards or rules that are general and not to be broke. The deficiencies to this approach is that their approach that the end outcome justifies what they do is not seen as positive. This approach means that someone must say what is good for all in the situation and by what standards does this person have to judge or decide. Because situations can be justified there are no universal norms and their acts have no essential value (Geisler, 2010,
Antinomianism has been described by Geisler (2010), as “against/instead of law, holds that there are no binding moral laws, that everything is relative” (p.22). This approach is said to have been brought about because of movements in history that influenced this approach. The movements of processism, …show more content…
In situationism it is said to be between legalism and antinomianism because there is only one law, the law of love as described by Joseph Fletcher. In this situation, he describes it between the two because with legalism decisions are based upon rules and regulations. With a legalist approach one would still execute someone if they were breaking the law, they would choose over law than for love. On the antinomian approach decisions are sporadic and have no absolute. This view would say there is no norm even with love. Therefore, situationism said to be between the other two (Geisler, 2010, p. 36). An example given that helps to summarize it by Geisler (2010), says “act responsibly in love. Literally everything else without exception, all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in any situation” …show more content…
They need norms and know that morals are not self-attained that there must be something that guides human behavior. When given a situation, the decision is made based on what will produce the greatest good out of this situation. Although, there are decisions based off what is good for all they do have a set of standards or rules that are general and not to be broke. The deficiencies to this approach is that their approach that the end outcome justifies what they do is not seen as positive. This approach means that someone must say what is good for all in the situation and by what standards does this person have to judge or decide. Because situations can be justified there are no universal norms and their acts have no essential value (Geisler, 2010,