P erhaps the best way to discuss the new morality is to divide it into the area of theory and the area of conduct. This is a necessary dis tinction, for it is one thing to discuss the philosophy of morals and quite another to note the present-day con duct of people. Many people today, as in former generations, are merely fol lowing their desires and the path of least resistance, even though their conduct may parallel that of some who are following the principles of the new morality. The basic theme of the new moral ity may be summarized in two words, “situational” and “love.” The propo nents of this new philosophy believe that each situation is unique and that we must make up our minds whether or not to commit adultery, whether or not to be honest, or whether or not to humble ourselves before God in the light of the specific situation. Let me illustrate. Perhaps you have had the temptation to go through a traffic signal late at night when you are positive there was no one ap proaching the signal. You thought that since no possible harm could come to you or others that it would be per fectly all right. If you decided that the situation was right for violating a traffic law, you would be putting into effect a philosophy that is fundamen tal to the new morality. One of the strongest advocates of the new morality is Dr. Joseph Fletch er who, in an address at Harvard in 1959, stated that “decision ought to be made situationally, not prescrip- tively.” He further states that right and wrong depend upon the situation alone. Later, in an address to a group of young people at Elmhurst College, Professor Fletcher is reported to have stated that “neither rape, nor incest, nor any other sexual act, nor indeed the denial of one’s Lord or the viola tion of the First Commandment by
having another god, is necessarily and always wrong.” He urged that when the situation is right, any of these is acceptable. Bishop Kobinson, in his book Honest to God, writes, “Nothing can of itself always be labelled as ‘wrong.’ One cannot, for instance, start from the position ‘sex relations before m a rriag e ’ or ‘divorce’ are wrong or sinful in themselves. They may be in 99 cases or even 100 cases out of 100, but they are not intrinsi cally so, for the only intrinsic evil is lack of love.” To some of you, this may sound like the old philosophy, “the end justifies the means.” This is precisely what it means. With such a philosophy it is not hard to see how readily any act that is Biblically immoral could be quickly justified. The teenage girl may argue that her boyfriend is more like ly to continue dating her if she yields to his advances. The employee may argue that his sick child is more de serving of the medical care that could be provided from the cash register than his healthy and wealthy boss. The “means” then of the girl yielding is justified by the “end” of continued dating, and the “means” of taking money is justified by the “end” of medical care for a sick child. Men freq u en tly argue for this “situational” approach on the grounds that it alone provides a method of handling the difficult choices in life. What do you do, for example, when your neighbor excitedly asks you what you think of the new paint job on his house, and you honestly don’t like it? Do you lie (just a little), or do you offend him by telling the truth and, thus, deflate his enthusiasm? No mat ter how sharp you are in dreaming up answers, such situations are certainly uncomfortable. On rare occasions, we may indeed find ourselves in a bind where no matter which way we turn we will be guilty of doing wrong. Such
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker