For a long time I've tried to chase down the roots of liberal thinking. It has taken awhile because, just like any tree, there are many roots proceeding from its base. This article is about merely a single root. Yet, it is an extremely important one because it is the shield behind which liberals hide and with which they defend their illogic and social demeanor (or, more accurately, misdemeanor).
"Webster's Dictionary" (online) defines "Situation Ethic" as: "a system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles - called also situational ethics"
Situational ethics is based upon, among other thoughts, theories, and philosophies, "Consequential Theory". For the sake of brevity, let us confine our examination of this perverse and pervasive theory to this:
"Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence" (Wikipedia)
In other words, as long as the outcome is for (whatever subjective) good, then the ends justifies the means regardless of any historical precedent that may have ruled such judgment. This includes completely disregarding facts and evidence then making a decision based on what you subjectively deem "correct" (i.e. judging according to whatever philosophy or theory you've been taught and not according to any existing social standard or pre-existant ethic). Some would (rightly) call this the "Robin Hood Syndrome" which justifies theft and robbery for the sake of "good" and "wealth redistribution". So, you can say this: situational ethics makes a determination of what is "right" without the anchor we know as "truth".
In the above definition, we see that it involves "any judgment about 'rightness' of that conduct". A simple definition of "doing that which is right" is "righteousness". Therefore, when "doing that which is right" is considered by a subjective standard in stead of a moral code like God's word, then the person, a person literally becomes the one and only god of his environment. That should hardly be a surprise because a major push of the "New Age Movement" (spawn of the "spirit of error"), is "Ye are gods". In other words, the one true living God, the Father of us all, doesn't exist. If He doesn't exist, then true righteousness doesn't exist.
It is important to note that this system has an underpinning that precludes the concept of "right and wrong" because right and wrong are absolutes and, according to this doctrine, there are no absolutes. Therefore, abstractly, "right and wrong" become subjective. Again, we can further note that this system necessarily denies God and His truth because God's word is absolute eternal truth.
Does this sound familiar yet? Doesn't it fit the "Zimmerman Trial" to a "T"? Even though six jurors labored intensively, thoughtfully, carefully, tearfully, and fairly to render a truthful and objective verdict, half of the country (notably the half that voted for uber-liberal Marxist Barack Obama who was voted into office by this very dynamic) still believes that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. The fact that the prosecuting attorney didn't have enough evidence to convict him of so much as "Disorderly Conduct", did not and has not dissuaded half the nation from their version of "justice" because the outcome wasn't what they preferred and had self-adjudicated. They didn't get their way so the verdict wasn't "right". The law, evidence, Martin's personal life, or any other facts were allowed to be involved with the case: only personally-defined ethics and emotions were allowed to judge the matter.
In a more succinct way, I define the term "situational ethic" as "the perceived power/authority to usurp history, law, facts/evidence, data, culture, cultural ethos and lore to then subjectively judge, determine, and define truth and/or correctness for any act or event".
Most have heard of this insane philosophy before in an older package: "If it feels good, do it". The atheists motto is another twist: "There is no God. There is no guilt. There is no sin, do what thou wilt".
A great deal of this philosophy comes from German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote that there is no Judaic concern for sin, prayers, rituals, forgiveness, repentance, guilt, punishment, or faith.
There is a dark side to this matter: because there is no "wrong", you (the liberal) can never be wrong. Therefore you never have to include your conscience at any time for any reason/reasoning. Because you have determined that your cause or campaign is "good" or "correct", the end justifies the means that you use to accomplish your goal. The Bible has accounted for this dynamic:
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron" (1Ti 4:1)
This seared conscience leads to humans having the ability to kill, steal, and destroy with all self-justification and even satisfaction. The evidence of this philosophy can be found in such a simply dynamic as the Huns conquering most of what is now Eastern Europe. They killed their adversaries, stole their land, gold, and goods, and destroyed whatever they wanted to with fire. If we further examine history, we see that the Catholic Church (in their inquisitions), the Crusades, the NAZI's in Word War 2, the Soviets in their revolution, and the various plenipotentiary or state-sponsered pogroms like that which was conducted by the Turks against the Armenians, we see that those in authority have slaughtered tens of millions of people and did so in all self-righteous smugness.
"The Democratic Party", a dissimulation of Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism, is a partaker of this truth slaying doctrine that is a powerful tool used to convey the destruction of a people who are more than willing to be deceived, willing to surrender their sovereignty, and to be lorded over (i.e. "protected"). They kill/slaughter babies in their mother's wombs ("murder" is a choice to make the would-be mother's life more "convenient"; situational ethic), they steal the wealth of others (Marxism), and they destroy nationalism and individualism with their "egalitarianism".
In fact, situational ethics leads to brutal "barbarism". In the book, "Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow and Our Coming Age of Barbarism", written by Christian attorney and author, Constance Cumbey, there is an account of how spiritual dynamics are conspiring to bring about the "New One World Order". This "order" will have a single non-Christian leader whom we know as the "Anti-Christ". The title gives terse-but-chilling testimony of a barbarism unlike anything in history and that is almost unfathomable by the normal human but more so by Christians.
It is "situational ethics" that will make possible the unthinkable: doing whatever is necessary to establish a one world government. This perverse and evil doctrine has been inculcated in our nation's educational system for the previous 40 years. We may want to take brief note that Christians have stood silent while our children have been taught to disregard the teachings of their parents and the values of the Bible.
It is beyond the scope of this series to exhaustively account for the institution of the "New World Order". Suffice to say that it will involve using a world-wide dissemination of the doctrines of "situational ethics" to kill whoever stands in the way, steal everything of worth and value, destroy the sovereignty of any and all nations to be able to be god to and be worshiped by a totally subjugated brainwashed and deceived people.
"Situational ethics" is not just a goofy Hippy philosophy, "if it feels good, do it". It's about the end of the world.
