Evangelical Ethics and Buridan's Ass (1)

ME > In recent Evangelical theology in the area of Ethics there have been four ethical theories that have played a prominent role. 

1. One is Situational Ethics. I am not too concerned with this. 
2. A second is Conflicting Absolutism. I call this the Lesser Evil Approach. Here both outcomes in a given ethical situation are bad, only that one is not as bad as the other. 
3. A third is Graded Absolutism. I call this the Greater Good Approach. Here the greater good is the better absolute to pick in a given situation. 
4. A final one is Non-Conflicting Absolutism, where it is purported that authentic moral conflicts are impossible. I.e. that they cannot obtain in a world where there is an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God. 

Does the above sound right to you? 

ChatGPT Answer>

Yes, your summary of the four ethical theories in recent Evangelical theology is broadly accurate. Here's a bit more detail on each to help clarify:

1. Situational Ethics: This theory, associated with Joseph Fletcher, suggests that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the context of the situation. It emphasizes love as the highest ethical principle, arguing that the most loving action in a particular situation determines what is morally right. This approach is not rigidly tied to moral absolutes but rather assesses each situation on its own merits.

2. Conflicting Absolutism (Lesser Evil Approach): This view holds that moral absolutes can conflict in a fallen world. When two moral laws conflict, and there is no option that avoids breaking at least one, one must choose the lesser of two evils. This means that in some situations, committing a sin might be necessary, but it would still be considered a sin that requires repentance. This theory maintains that all moral conflicts are the result of living in a sinful world.

3. Graded Absolutism (Greater Good Approach): This approach, also known as hierarchicalism, believes that there are higher and lower moral laws. When moral absolutes come into conflict, one should follow the higher law, which may override the lesser one. The action chosen is not considered sinful if it aligns with the higher moral principle. For example, preserving human life might take precedence over telling the truth, so lying to save a life could be seen as morally justified under this view.

4. Non-Conflicting Absolutism: This theory argues that genuine moral conflicts do not exist because God's moral law is perfect, harmonious, and reflects His nature. Thus, there is always a way to obey all moral absolutes without contradiction, even in difficult situations. This view asserts that if a person believes they face a moral conflict, it is due to a lack of understanding or imagination, not an actual contradiction in God's law.

Your descriptions align well with these interpretations. The key distinctions revolve around how each theory deals with perceived moral conflicts and the role of divine guidance in resolving those conflicts.