To what extent is right or wrong dictated by time or circumstance?

I was reading through Christian Renewal this afternoon, and I noticed a block titled "Relativism now the majority view in America."

Anyways, the answer a survey turns out is often representative more of the organization conducting it, than of the truth of the matter (it's all about how the questions are phrased). I'd consider myself a believer in absolute morality, but in that survey I'd probably classified a relativist. I think that whether an action is right or wrong does vary according to circumstance, albeit in a controlled fashion.

  • Case 1: Consider some action, X, that is in the absolute sense not immoral (is it a sign that I've been in school too long when I start defining variables in my sentences?). If a person, Y, believes that God says that he/she should not do action X, then I believe that if Y does action X then they've done wrong (as they've acted contrary to what they believe that God demands of them). That said, this does not excuse a person who performs an act that they believe is either morally-neutral or morally-required, but which is in the objective sense immoral.
  • Case 2: This is the relatively common example given of where person A can save person B's life is by stealing C (needed medicine, food, etc) from a closed drug/grocery store when they can't find the owner, otherwise person B will die.

I'm not quite sure what position to take on the issue in case 2. I don't think you can really find some point when B is nearing death beyond which the action of breaking into the store would become moral. Consider Jesus' words in Mark 2:23-27 as a possible example of situational ethics.

So, what are your thoughts on this issue? Am I just missing a distinction between morality and ethics?

Comments

I'm confused by Case 1 so I have no idea how to comment on it. As for Case 2, I've heard it explained narratively a few times, and as I recall person A leaves a note to the owner that he will pay for the item and all damages in the morning. I'm not sure how well this would fly in court though. One could also approach from the other point of view, that perhaps God intends for person B to die at that time?

I guess that Case 1 wasn't really stated too clearly, so let me try to explain it again.

Basically if I decide not to do something that I believe that God demands me to do, then I sin - even if this activity was not in fact something that God commands (ie. I misunderstood).

In that particular case, although you might think you are sinning, you really aren't. There's also no harm in asking for forgiveness for that non-sin, since Christ intercedes for us and knows our needs better than we do.

But if you intentionally violate what you believe to be the will of God aren't you sinning at least in intention, if not in practice?

Whether or not something is sinful is determined by God, not individuals. Just like individuals can't decide for themselves what is truth. One can go around proclaiming that pigs can fly, but that doesn't make it true. Similarly, one can go around proclaiming that wearing hats is sinful, but that doesn't make it true either, no matter how convinced you are in your own mind.

I think that a person's mind does impact whether or not they sin. Consider Amos 5:21,22, which suggests that more than simply actions matter.

I don't think that performing the action would constitute a sin, if a person believed an action to be immoral when it actually wasn't. Their violation of what they believe to be the will of God, on the other hand - I can't reason any way in which that couldn't be considered a sin.

If somebody does something that they think is contrary to the will of God, but actually it's not, how is that a sin? As I already said before, whether or not something is sinful is determined by God not mankind.

I'm not sure how that text you referenced applies. It seems to be about the people's sacrifices being rejected, which has happened on a few occasions. Salvation is by faith not works.

I'm not sure how that text you referenced applies. It seems to be about the people's sacrifices being rejected, which has happened on a few occasions.

Regarding the text, what I was trying to suggest is that it not only matters what we do, but the state of the heart.

How about 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 (particularly verse 14), regarding food sacrified to idols?

Indeed, if someone were to go to catechism and become a member, but not believe in their heart, they do not have true faith. In the case you are suggesting, the heart is still in the right place, but the mind is confused.

Sacrificing food to an idol does not actually affect the food, but should not be eaten because in the opinion of those performing the sacrifice, it has been consecrated to the idol. A good modern day example of this is the fountain at the monastery in Mission. You can go see this for yourself: there is a sign stating the fountain has been blessed so the water is holy. Although one might disagree, since the authority of the person who blessed the fountain is questionable, still you would not use the water out of consideration for their beliefs.

Sacrificing food to an idol does not actually affect the food, but should not be eaten because in the opinion of those performing the sacrifice, it has been consecrated to the idol.

In the example earlier quoted, the food could still be eaten regardless of what the person to consecrate the food thinks - the problem there seemed more about what the eater and those who see the eater eat thing.

(that said, for the sort of behaviour that you're talking about there was old testament precedent with Daniel et al. in Babylon)