Situation ethics works towards a successful end goal which in this case is love, this is pragmatism. The ethic is relativistic which means that there are no fixed rules when choosing what to do but whatever is done must stay relative to the Christian love of agape, making it simple and easy to make decisions accordingly. Positivism is where faith statements are made and people act in a way that is reasonable in the light of these statements. Reason isn’t the basis for faith, but it works within faith. Situation ethics depends on Christians freely choosing faith that god is love, so giving first place to Christian love.
Situation ethics does have rules and principles to abide by. However, situationists are allowed to set these general rules aside if it seems more loving to do so. Situational ethics is a teleological theory as it is mainly concerned with the outcome and if this outcome is the most loving thing. Fletcher argued that “loves decisions are made situationally not prescriptively” this statement can be accounted for by the actions of Jesus Christ himself. Christianity teaches that people should not work on the day of Sabbath as God himself didn’t and that it should be the day of rest.
When talking to Hale, we learn that John only goes to church sometimes and that his third son has not been baptized. This is a surprise to Hale because keeping the Sabbath and religion are very important to Puritans and not keeping it is a sin and even a crime in the people's eyes. Seeing as John does not keep the Sabbath, this causes both the characters and the readers to question whether or not John really is a Christian/Puritan. John is definitely a free thinker. He is certainly not a sheep that blindly follows everyone else.
Thomas Jefferson Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him. Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.
The Puritans believed that a person need not be a member of the clergy to preach the word of God. A sermon was a good choice for the Puritan audience because they would have been familiar and comfortable with this format, since much of their lives centered on worship.
Martin Luther King Jr. was an excellent teacher, leader, and preacher. He taught the people right from wrong and justice or fairness. He lead the people in the right footsteps. He never spoke to them the wrong unless he was saying what had been done was wrong. He preach to the people that we were all equal and we could become one and treat each other as family.
A Puritan Justification for Community The provided “Justifications for Undertaking a New Settlement” clearly represents Puritan ideals, both religious and political, in respects to their beliefs of creating an exemplary community for God, where sins are punishable by God. The justification begins with a subtle jeremiad “Our many sins, for which the Lord shows his displeasure with us,” very simply stating that when Puritans sin, the Lord strikes down against them. According to James A. Monroe, in his selection “U.S. : A City upon a Hill,” expressing jeremiads in Puritan culture was one method of maintaining Puritan utopia. The establishment of jeremiads and their implementation appeared to maintain the block between rich and poor, called
Nobody could know regardless of whether he is predestinated for salvation, yet when one complies with God's will and succeeds throughout his life he most likely is. Thus, the Puritans attempted to comply with each and every word from the book of scriptures. That created strict laws and good codes in their group. Likewise, they had an in number hard working attitude. They were exceptionally restrained, buckled down and didn't spend their cash for their own
Lao Tzu and Machiavelli disagree on some other beliefs. In Article 67, Lao Tzu states that he believes in three traits of leaderships; simplicity, compassion, and patience. Machiavelli however writes a prince “…needs to appear to be merciful, faithful, humane, forthright, religious…” (49), but to actually practice all the above traits at all times would be harmful to a prince’s power. Reading both views of such a highly discussed topic tugs your own view. While I understand the views of both men, I believe that Machiavelli’s perspective is more prevalent and useful in the world today.
From a Christian viewpoint most ethicists criticize self-interest as a ‘narrow’ view that could ingeniously embrace harmful selfishness. Do we agree with them? Though we consider its importance as a primary motive for acting in market economical and political affairs, we argue that ethical standards basically require a moral outlook that goes beyond the dominant self-interest model. Since most people have both a benevolent and self-interested attitude, we view self-love as indispensable for cooperation and social behaviour. Christian love essentially unites persons with the ontological good – originated from God – and transforms the self to be concerned both for oneself and the good of others on the level of identity.