Register to read the introduction…
Aquinas acknowledges that this can be a difficult task, and asserts that if people do not take care to look into the ideas of right and wrong, habitual immorality can develop. He stressed that this immortality is present in both the intention and carrying out of an act, and that to act in a good way for the wrong reason is to perform a good exterior act but a bad interior one. For example, donating money to charity is a good exterior act, but if given with the wrong intention, it has a bad interior intention, making it an immoral act. However, the reverse is not true: a good interior intention cannot justify an immoral outward act. The ‘end’ to all of these acts must be God; pleasure is not a valid reason for any act, as animals can experience it, but cannot feel the presence of God.
Situation ethics is essentially opposed to natural law, in that it goes against the idea of morality being defined by a set of precepts. However, both follow Christian principles; the difference comes …show more content…
Legalistic ethics are those traditionally followed by Christians, and involve precepts that are literally interpreted. Fletcher believed that this caused problems because it meant the implications of each commandment had to be decided by non-deistic influences. For example the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is clouded by the issues of self-defence, war, and euthanasia. Conversely, antinomian ethics disregard any rule system entirely, preferring to make a decision purely on the circumstances of any situation. Fletcher takes exception with people who follow this philosophy, viewing them as “anarchic” and “unprincipled.” Situation ethics is an moral belief-system placed between these two extremes; it approaches moral dilemmas with the principles of the person’s particular tradition. However, the ‘situationist’ is prepared to compromise these principles if love would be better served by doing so; he “follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s
Situation ethics is essentially opposed to natural law, in that it goes against the idea of morality being defined by a set of precepts. However, both follow Christian principles; the difference comes …show more content…
Legalistic ethics are those traditionally followed by Christians, and involve precepts that are literally interpreted. Fletcher believed that this caused problems because it meant the implications of each commandment had to be decided by non-deistic influences. For example the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is clouded by the issues of self-defence, war, and euthanasia. Conversely, antinomian ethics disregard any rule system entirely, preferring to make a decision purely on the circumstances of any situation. Fletcher takes exception with people who follow this philosophy, viewing them as “anarchic” and “unprincipled.” Situation ethics is an moral belief-system placed between these two extremes; it approaches moral dilemmas with the principles of the person’s particular tradition. However, the ‘situationist’ is prepared to compromise these principles if love would be better served by doing so; he “follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s