Generally speaking, ethics involves actions that comply with regulations, such as the regulations of the land, the expectations as well as the customs of the society, the moral principles, and the organization’s policies. It also involves developing concerns for fairness and others’ needs. Simply put, ethics generally involves what is right and wrong. Christian ethics, in particular, typically deals with what is considered right and wrong for someone who is a Christian. There are various ethical systems in Christian ethics. In this regard, this paper seeks to examine antinomianism, situationalism , as well as generalism moral systems.
Antinomianism
Antinomianism generally means “instead of or against the law,” and it believes that there are no ethical laws (Geisler, 2010) . In other words, the system holds that everything is relative. Antinomians are typically without moral regulations. This can both be comprehended in a limited or absolute sense. On the one hand, in the limited sense, individuals deny any absolute , objective, or even laws that are given by God. It does not refuse all ethical rules . However, it ignores any regulations that any individual may impose on other people. In an absolute sense, on the other hand, individuals in this category are without any ethical law even though a few people hold this particular view (Lovin, 2009) To put it differently, it is a view that they are ordinarily charged with holding by inference and not by their clear confession.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
First, there is no existence of God-given ethical laws in antinomianism. Antinomians are atheists since they do not hold the belief that any ethical principles have divine sanctions. Second, there are no moral laws that are objective. In other words, whatever moral regulations that may exist are relative to people who decide to follow and obey them. Third, there are no timeless ethical regulations. The moral laws that may exist are not eternal but temporal. That is, moral laws can change from time to time as and from place to place. Finally, there is no existence of laws against laws . Most antinomians are without law; they believe that there are no objective ethical laws.
Situationalism
According to Joseph Fletcher, situationism is between antinomianism and legalism extremes. The antinomians generally have no regulations whereas the legalists have regulations for pretty much everything (Geisler, 2010) . Fletcher believes that there exists one regulation for everything and that is the law of love. He believes that the law of love can be applied in any ethical situation. In other words, situationists strongly believe in the duty of love. A situationist arrives into every moral battle armed with only one ethical weapon which is love. It is only the love command that is good; every other choice is viewed as hypothetical. Situationism believe that within the framework of love , everything else is relativistic, pragmatic, personalistic, and positivistic (Mawson, 2018).
Generalism
Generalism generally holds the belief that there are some binding principles of ethics. Nonetheless, generalists insist that none of the ethical regulations is indeed absolute. The generalist can solve moral conflicts easily since every ethical law admits of exceptions. It is vital to note that contemporary generalists hold the belief that pleasure is the greatest good for people (Geisler, 2010) .
Further , generalism proponents seem to share the teachings of the Bible but fail to recognize that the commandments of God are binding. They hold the belief that no individual is responsible for their violation. In their opinion, the ten commandments are just moral life recommendations (Mawson, 2018). For example, generalists believe that a lie is allowed to save a life since the Ten Commandments are only principles of morality. Generalism, therefore, can be attributed to a moral system that is primarily based on permissiveness ("Society for the Study of Christian Ethics ," 2012).
Case Study
The three previously mentioned ethical systems can typically aid me to make ethical choice in life. For example, in the event of a war, when the soldiers come to me to tell them the whereabouts of my neighbor so that they can kill him, I can lie to save his life as this will be ethically right. Antinomianism asserts that lying is not right or wrong as the problem must be decided on personal, subjective and pragmatic grounds. Generalism, in contrast, notes that lying is wrong and there are no universal regulations. However, a rule can be broken in specific circumstances if the results are good. Therefore, in case, lying to save a life will be morally right as the results will be good. Situationists, on the other hand, believe in the philosophy of love; hence lying in the case study will be morally right because it is based on the love for my neighbor.
Conclusion
To sum up, antinomianism is the most sound ethical principles as it acknowledges that change is an important part of our life and it emphasizes personal responsibility. Also, it accepts an emotive element, that is, they regard statements such as “You ought not” as merely expressions of people’s feelings. Finally, it emphasizes individual relations thus our ethical responsibility is to others. Generalism, on the other hand, is the weakest as the end does not justify the means. In light of this reality, an action is not good merely since it has a good objective. The means to attain it must be morally right . In addition , generalism does not have universal norms. There are always exceptions or circumstances that are not covered by the general rules .
References
Geisler, N. (2010). Christian ethics . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic.
Lovin, R. (2009). Becoming Responsible in Christian Ethics. Studies in Christian Ethics , 22 (4), 389-398. doi: 10.1177/0953946809340939
Mawson, M. (2018). Guest Editorial: Luther and Christian Ethics. Studies in Christian Ethics , 095394681879216. doi: 10.1177/0953946818792164
Society for the Study of Christian Ethics. (2012). Studies in Christian Ethics , 25 (2), 273-273. doi: 10.1177/0953946812446556
