But Fletcher did not define what love demands according to any fixed, transcendent norm; rather, the situation itself determines the most loving response. So, for example, adultery could be the most loving thing in one situation while love could demand chastity in another.
The problem with situational ethics is not that it calls us to take into account the circumstances of the ethical situation. Biblical case law, in fact, shows us that applying God's law properly in any context requires that we know as much as possible about the specifics of the context in which the decision is being made see, for instance, Deut.
The problem is not even that doing what love requires is a bad principle, though it is reductionistic since the Lord has given us many transcendent principles and commandments. After all, the Apostle Paul tells us that "love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the ful lling of the law" Rom.
Thus, if we love God and others rightly, we will have followed the other ethical principles the Lord has revealed. At the end of the day, Fletcher's ethic is wrongheaded because it separates God's law from love.
We are morally obligated in every situation to do what love demands; however, the real royal law of Christian ethics is that we ought always to do what the God of love demands—not what we think love requires. It is best not to transgress God's Law under any circumstance, regardless of your motive. God knows best and instituted His Law for a purpose. He has not given permission to any man to transgress His Law.
If you will suffer because of keeping His Law, rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so the Prophets suffered before you, and great is your reward in Heaven. If you can save a loved one from suffering by breaking God's Law, do not. For you are taking away their opportunity to persevere and receive blessings from God.
Furthermore, you are breaking God's Law, bringing His displeasure upon yourself. To break God's eternal Law for a temporal concern is to focus upon things of this world and to ignore eternity.
Explore More Now! Read More. What is ethical relativism? There are many leadership styles that a leader can implement to be more successful in the workplace. One of these styles is situational leadership, which is when a leader adjusts their type of leadership to best suit a particular situation or task.
In this article, we discuss the definition of situational leadership, how leaders can implement situational leadership and the advantages and disadvantages of this style of leadership.
This style of leadership is not dependent on the skills of a leader; rather it is based on a leader's ability to adjust to the requirements of a team or organization in order to be a better and more effective leader.
This leadership style may also be referred to as "Situational Leadership Theory" or the "Situational Leadership Model" and was originated by Ken Blanchard and Paul Hersey during the development of the book, Management of Organizational Behavior.
According to Blanchard and Hersey, a situational leader may use one of the following leadership behavioral styles depending on the situation:.
This style is when a team requires close supervision and constant guidance. Leaders using a telling style may make all of the decisions and then communicate these decisions to the team.
The telling style is most commonly used when repetitive results are needed or when a team is at the novice level. This type of leadership is typically used when a team or employee is unmotivated to perform a task or job duty.
The participating behavioral leadership style is most commonly used when a team is competent in particular tasks but do not have the willingness or confidence needed to complete them. The delegating leadership style is when a team is efficient and effective at their jobs and require little guidance.
No particular style is considered to be the best for a leader. Rather, a leader using a situational style of leadership will use whichever style is best suited to a situation. Assaulting a stranger - in self-defense. Killing a person - in war time. Driving through a red light - when rushing an injured person to a hospital. Killing an animal - to shorten a painful death euthanasia.
Situational Ethics are applied in most mainstream legal and religious systems because of a recognition that a strict or fundamentalist interpretation of rules, laws and moral codes can sometimes lead to injustices or may provide a person who has questionable motives with enough cover or justification to behave in an unjust manner.
Most court cases are an exercise is evaluating the situational ethics surrounding a case in light of the applicable laws, available evidence and relevant circumstances. Situational ethics also have considerable limitations and weaknesses. Since situational ethics attempt to justify actions and behaviors based on expected consequences they are dependent on the individual subjective judgment of each person, their interpretation of a situation and their current beliefs about the future consequences of their actions.
When Personality Disorders are brought into the mix, and therefore the people involved have vastly different realities, the results can be explosive. Now imagine you are back at that dinner party, and the same sequence of events takes place - but this time you were mistaken and you only believed or imagined that the person was choking.
This time, you are not going to be considered a hero. You may be considered a trouble maker, a liability or a fool. You have brought a crisis response into a non-critical situation.
0コメント