Chapter 27 - Situation Ethics
"If we are gods, we can develop our own truth."
But if Humanism succeeds and religion is removed from the American lifestyle, the Christian style of morality will be done away with as well. That means that the Humanists must have a moral view to offer in its place.
And they do: it is called Situation Ethics.
The dictionary defines "situation ethics" as: "A system of ethics according to which moral rules are not absolutely binding but may be modified in the light of specific situations."
The Humanists have declared their support of this concept.
They have included it in their Humanist Manifesto II: "Third: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational." 536
Douglas Grothuis, author of UNMASKING THE NEW AGE, wrote: "Once you've deified yourself [made yourself into a god,] which is what the New Age is all about, there is no higher moral absolute. It's a recipe for ethical anarchy." 537
In essence, the New. Agers are saying: All moral values are situational. The situation determines what's right or wrong, and since situations constantly change, what's right today may be wrong tomorrow.
The New Age Movement, the Humanist Religion, and the Communists have made a god out of man; they have deified mankind. The new morality for a man-god is whatever he decides it is, and that is what the New Age-Humanists- Communists have done. Their new morality is called Situation Ethics.
Dr. Arthur E. Gravatt, M.D., defined the term for a scientific journal: "... moral behavior may differ from situation to situation. Behavior might be moral for one person and not another. Whether an act is moral or immoral is determined by the law of love;' that is the extent of which love and concern for others is a factor in the relationship." 538
But it was another who coined the phrase "Situation Ethics."
That honor belongs to Joseph Fletcher, who first used the word in a speech to Harvard alumni in 1964. He was a professor at the Cambridge Episcopal Theological Seminary.
This is what he believes: "... for me there are no rules - none at all...
... anything and everything is right or wrong according to the situation -- what is wrong in some cases is right in others...
... a situationist would discard all absolutes except the one absolute: always to act with loving concern." 539
By this definition, mass murderers would not be in error if they professed that their acts were based on a love for humanity, and that they had committed their murders with "a loving concern." If, for example, one of these murderers killed people in an area polluted with radioactive wastes, and said that these acts were being committed because the murderer did not want them to be affected by the pollution, and that he loved them, the act would be acceptable according to those who believed in Situation Ethics.
This "morality" known as "Situation Ethics" is the underlying philosophy of the Communists/Socialists who murder a percentage of a nation's population in a quest for their goal of Communism or Socialism. The advocates of these "-isms"
claim that their goal is so desirable that those who they murder must give way for the good of all humanity. The corollary of this position is "The end justifies the means."
The Communists in Russia murdered up to 42 million people in the Communist Revolution of 1917 because the Communist society was deemed to be worth all of the carnage by the murderers.
It is certain that Adolf Hitler felt that his murders of some 50 million people during World War II were not wrong because the "Third Reich" that would result after the war was over would be worth it.
Chou En-Lai and Mao Tse Tung murdered as many as 64 million people in their Communist Revolution that started in 1923 and ended in 1949 and one can know that they felt that the price the dead people had to pay for the rest of the Chinese was worth the end result.
It will be remembered that Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, wrote that "the ends justified the means."
Weishuapt wrote further that "no man [would be] fit for our Order who [was] not ready to go to every length." 540 Only one with no moral values, in other words, one who believed in Situation Ethics, would be "willing to go to every length."
John Robison, the exposer of the Illuminati, wrote: "Nothing was so frequently discoursed of as the propriety of employing, for the good purpose, the means which the wicked employed for evil purposes; and it was taught, that the preponderancy of good in the ultimate result consecrated every mean employed." 541
A modern day exponent of the Situation Ethics philosophy is actress Shirley MacLaine. She has written: "There is no such thing as evil. Evil is fear and uncertainty.
Evil is what you think it is.
This business of 'evil' and 'satan' was a ridiculous concept to me." 542
And the Masons also believe in Situation Ethics. Mason H. L. Haywood wrote in his book entitled, GREAT TEACHINGS OF MASONRY: "Human experience... is the one final authority in morals.
Wrong is whatever hurts human life or destroys human happiness...
Acts are not right or wrong intrinsically but according as their effects are hurtful or helpful." 543
And he repeated the thought in another of his books, THE MEANING OF MASONRY: "What is good for me may be evil for you; what is right to do at one moment may be wrong the next." 544
And Albert Pike agreed with this comment in his book MORALS AND DOGMA: "... all truths are truths of Period, and not truth for eternity." 545
Mr Pike held that there were no absolutes. All truths were only for the period. This view is called Situation Ethics.
Mr. Pike called his book MORALS AND DOGMA. Situation Ethics is a particular view of morality. Judging from Mr. Pike's comments, it would be fair to conclude that this was the moral view of the book. Mr. Pike was instructing every Mason who read the book that the Masonic religion believed in Situation Ethics.
Fellow Mason Manly P. Hall took a little different tack, but said basically the same thing: "It has always been a serious question to me whether Jesus ever actually spoke the words: 'If ye love me, keep my commandments,' for the statement is clearly out of accord with both divine and human reason." 546
Jesus taught his followers that they were to obey his commandments.
Those commandments were called Moral Absolutes.
Mr. Hall was saying that Jesus never taught that, and that human reason would not accept the principle that there were moral absolutes. Human reason has concluded that keeping a divine commandment is not "reasonable."
Friedrich Nietzsche, whose powerful dissertation on THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS sought to make "a revaluation of all values," wrote that "so-called evil was good, and what was habitually believed to be good was evil." 547
The Communists are also taught that there are no absolutes in life. Nikolai Lenin, the Russian Communist, certainly believed in Situation Ethics. His revolution in 1917 murdered, as has been discussed before, nearly 42 million people, to achieve the goal of Communism for the Russian people. He wrote: "Communism is power based upon force and limited to nothing, by no kind of law and by absolutely no set rule." 548
"The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing else than power based upon force and limited by nothing -- by no kind of law and by absolutely no rule." 549 "We must combat religion. This is the ABC of all materialism and consequently of Marxism.
Down with religion. Long live atheism. The spread of atheism is our chief task.
Communism abolishes eternal truths. It abolishes all religion and morality." 550
Lenin showed that his thinking was just as illogical as that exhibited by John Dewey. He stated that "Communism abolished eternal truths."
This is impossible!
The word "eternal" is defined as being of infinite duration, or perpetual.
That which is eternal has no end. It will continue to exist throughout all of time.
Lenin admitted that in his view, these "truths" were eternal.
Yet he admitted that Communism would "abolish" these "eternal truths."
That which is eternal cannot be abolished.
Unless your thinking is as convoluted as that of Nikolai Lenin!
Lenin was just as insane as John Dewey!
He continued with other similar thoughts: "We, of course, say that we do not believe in God.
We do not believe in eternal morality.
We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human, class concepts. We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle.
Communists must regard themselves as free, indeed morally obligated to violate the truthfulness, respect for life, etc., when it is absolutely clear that a great deal more harm [to Communist objectives] would be done by adhering to such principles than by violating them.
That is moral, that serves the destruction of the old society." 551
"We must repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas, or ideals which are outside class conceptions. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality?
In the sense that they were preached by the bourgeoisie [meaning the rich?] who declared that these were god's commandments." 552
Frederick Engels, a co-worker in the world of Communism with Karl Marx, wrote: "leaving aside the problem of morality... for a revolutionist any means are right which lead to the purpose, the violent, as the seemingly tame." 553
Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoevski, the Russian novelist, wrote this in one of his writings: "If there is no god, everything is permitted." 554
What happens to the individual's mind after he accepts the philosophy of situation ethics can be best illustrated by studying the writings of Sergei Nechayev, the Russian Revolutionary.
This young man had an enormous influence on the outcome of the Russian Bolshevik Communist Revolution of 1917, and the resulting deaths of approximately 42 million people, because his writings had an enormous influence on Nikolai Lenin. Nechayev wrote: "Our cause is terrible, complete, universal and pitiless destruction... Let us unite with the savage, criminal world, these true and only revolutionists of Russia." 555
Only a believer in Situation Ethics could ever say such a thing. There are no moral absolutes when complete destruction is your goal. And that was the goal of this revolutionary.
He continued: "The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property and no name.
Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.
The revolutionary knows... he has broken all bonds which tie him to social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities and customs and with its generally accepted conventions.
The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.
The revolutionary... despises and hates the existing social morality...
For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in his way.
[The revolutionary] must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution."
"Do not pity... Kill in public places if these base rascals dare to enter them, kill in houses, kill in villages.
Remember, those who will not side with us will be against us.
Whoever is against us is our enemy. And we must destroy enemies by all means." 556
What this young revolutionary wrote about was unrestricted Situation Ethics, where there absolutely is no right and wrong. NechayeVs thoughts are the logical result of this type of thinking. Once the revolutionary accepts this ethical code, anything is permitted. Murder, looting, pillaging, and torture become acceptable behavior.
And this is the ethical code of the Humanist.
Situation Ethics leads some into a position of hating the entire society, and of wishing to destroy the whole social fabric, the "old world order." Then those who wish to fill the void can remake the world. And the new world that will be created will be called The New World Order.
Remember that Nechayev wrote that the revolutionary intended to "destroy the whole filthy order." The goal of the revolutionary was to destroy the "old world order" and replace it with the "New World Order."
Perhaps the major purpose of Situation Ethics was made clear in a book written by Aldous Huxley entitled BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED. He identified the destruction of the individual as the primary goal of this new ethical teaching. He wrote: "... a new Social Ethic is replacing our traditional ethical system -- the system in which the individual is primary.
... the social whole has greater worth and significance than its individual parts,... that the rights of the collectivity take precedence over... the Rights of Man." 557
But Situation Ethics is not new. It is as old as the Bible.
Isaiah the prophet was moved to write about the system in about 740 B.C. He wrote this in Isaiah 5:20-21 in the Old Testament of the Bible: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."
Situation Ethics calls evil good and good evil.
And it is the philosophy of the Humanists, the Communists and some of the Masons.
And it is rapidly becoming the morality of America.
"If we are gods, we can develop our own truth."
But if Humanism succeeds and religion is removed from the American lifestyle, the Christian style of morality will be done away with as well. That means that the Humanists must have a moral view to offer in its place.
And they do: it is called Situation Ethics.
The dictionary defines "situation ethics" as: "A system of ethics according to which moral rules are not absolutely binding but may be modified in the light of specific situations."
The Humanists have declared their support of this concept.
They have included it in their Humanist Manifesto II: "Third: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational." 536
Douglas Grothuis, author of UNMASKING THE NEW AGE, wrote: "Once you've deified yourself [made yourself into a god,] which is what the New Age is all about, there is no higher moral absolute. It's a recipe for ethical anarchy." 537
In essence, the New. Agers are saying: All moral values are situational. The situation determines what's right or wrong, and since situations constantly change, what's right today may be wrong tomorrow.
The New Age Movement, the Humanist Religion, and the Communists have made a god out of man; they have deified mankind. The new morality for a man-god is whatever he decides it is, and that is what the New Age-Humanists- Communists have done. Their new morality is called Situation Ethics.
Dr. Arthur E. Gravatt, M.D., defined the term for a scientific journal: "... moral behavior may differ from situation to situation. Behavior might be moral for one person and not another. Whether an act is moral or immoral is determined by the law of love;' that is the extent of which love and concern for others is a factor in the relationship." 538
But it was another who coined the phrase "Situation Ethics."
That honor belongs to Joseph Fletcher, who first used the word in a speech to Harvard alumni in 1964. He was a professor at the Cambridge Episcopal Theological Seminary.
This is what he believes: "... for me there are no rules - none at all...
... anything and everything is right or wrong according to the situation -- what is wrong in some cases is right in others...
... a situationist would discard all absolutes except the one absolute: always to act with loving concern." 539
By this definition, mass murderers would not be in error if they professed that their acts were based on a love for humanity, and that they had committed their murders with "a loving concern." If, for example, one of these murderers killed people in an area polluted with radioactive wastes, and said that these acts were being committed because the murderer did not want them to be affected by the pollution, and that he loved them, the act would be acceptable according to those who believed in Situation Ethics.
123
This "morality" known as "Situation Ethics" is the underlying philosophy of the Communists/Socialists who murder a percentage of a nation's population in a quest for their goal of Communism or Socialism. The advocates of these "-isms"
claim that their goal is so desirable that those who they murder must give way for the good of all humanity. The corollary of this position is "The end justifies the means."
The Communists in Russia murdered up to 42 million people in the Communist Revolution of 1917 because the Communist society was deemed to be worth all of the carnage by the murderers.
It is certain that Adolf Hitler felt that his murders of some 50 million people during World War II were not wrong because the "Third Reich" that would result after the war was over would be worth it.
Chou En-Lai and Mao Tse Tung murdered as many as 64 million people in their Communist Revolution that started in 1923 and ended in 1949 and one can know that they felt that the price the dead people had to pay for the rest of the Chinese was worth the end result.
It will be remembered that Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, wrote that "the ends justified the means."
Weishuapt wrote further that "no man [would be] fit for our Order who [was] not ready to go to every length." 540 Only one with no moral values, in other words, one who believed in Situation Ethics, would be "willing to go to every length."
John Robison, the exposer of the Illuminati, wrote: "Nothing was so frequently discoursed of as the propriety of employing, for the good purpose, the means which the wicked employed for evil purposes; and it was taught, that the preponderancy of good in the ultimate result consecrated every mean employed." 541
A modern day exponent of the Situation Ethics philosophy is actress Shirley MacLaine. She has written: "There is no such thing as evil. Evil is fear and uncertainty.
Evil is what you think it is.
This business of 'evil' and 'satan' was a ridiculous concept to me." 542
And the Masons also believe in Situation Ethics. Mason H. L. Haywood wrote in his book entitled, GREAT TEACHINGS OF MASONRY: "Human experience... is the one final authority in morals.
Wrong is whatever hurts human life or destroys human happiness...
Acts are not right or wrong intrinsically but according as their effects are hurtful or helpful." 543
And he repeated the thought in another of his books, THE MEANING OF MASONRY: "What is good for me may be evil for you; what is right to do at one moment may be wrong the next." 544
And Albert Pike agreed with this comment in his book MORALS AND DOGMA: "... all truths are truths of Period, and not truth for eternity." 545
Mr Pike held that there were no absolutes. All truths were only for the period. This view is called Situation Ethics.
Mr. Pike called his book MORALS AND DOGMA. Situation Ethics is a particular view of morality. Judging from Mr. Pike's comments, it would be fair to conclude that this was the moral view of the book. Mr. Pike was instructing every Mason who read the book that the Masonic religion believed in Situation Ethics.
Fellow Mason Manly P. Hall took a little different tack, but said basically the same thing: "It has always been a serious question to me whether Jesus ever actually spoke the words: 'If ye love me, keep my commandments,' for the statement is clearly out of accord with both divine and human reason." 546
124
Jesus taught his followers that they were to obey his commandments.
Those commandments were called Moral Absolutes.
Mr. Hall was saying that Jesus never taught that, and that human reason would not accept the principle that there were moral absolutes. Human reason has concluded that keeping a divine commandment is not "reasonable."
Friedrich Nietzsche, whose powerful dissertation on THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS sought to make "a revaluation of all values," wrote that "so-called evil was good, and what was habitually believed to be good was evil." 547
The Communists are also taught that there are no absolutes in life. Nikolai Lenin, the Russian Communist, certainly believed in Situation Ethics. His revolution in 1917 murdered, as has been discussed before, nearly 42 million people, to achieve the goal of Communism for the Russian people. He wrote: "Communism is power based upon force and limited to nothing, by no kind of law and by absolutely no set rule." 548
"The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing else than power based upon force and limited by nothing -- by no kind of law and by absolutely no rule." 549 "We must combat religion. This is the ABC of all materialism and consequently of Marxism.
Down with religion. Long live atheism. The spread of atheism is our chief task.
Communism abolishes eternal truths. It abolishes all religion and morality." 550
Lenin showed that his thinking was just as illogical as that exhibited by John Dewey. He stated that "Communism abolished eternal truths."
This is impossible!
The word "eternal" is defined as being of infinite duration, or perpetual.
That which is eternal has no end. It will continue to exist throughout all of time.
Lenin admitted that in his view, these "truths" were eternal.
Yet he admitted that Communism would "abolish" these "eternal truths."
That which is eternal cannot be abolished.
Unless your thinking is as convoluted as that of Nikolai Lenin!
Lenin was just as insane as John Dewey!
He continued with other similar thoughts: "We, of course, say that we do not believe in God.
We do not believe in eternal morality.
We repudiate all morality that is taken outside of human, class concepts. We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle.
Communists must regard themselves as free, indeed morally obligated to violate the truthfulness, respect for life, etc., when it is absolutely clear that a great deal more harm [to Communist objectives] would be done by adhering to such principles than by violating them.
That is moral, that serves the destruction of the old society." 551
125
"We must repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas, or ideals which are outside class conceptions. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.
In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality?
In the sense that they were preached by the bourgeoisie [meaning the rich?] who declared that these were god's commandments." 552
Frederick Engels, a co-worker in the world of Communism with Karl Marx, wrote: "leaving aside the problem of morality... for a revolutionist any means are right which lead to the purpose, the violent, as the seemingly tame." 553
Feodor Mikhailovich Dostoevski, the Russian novelist, wrote this in one of his writings: "If there is no god, everything is permitted." 554
What happens to the individual's mind after he accepts the philosophy of situation ethics can be best illustrated by studying the writings of Sergei Nechayev, the Russian Revolutionary.
This young man had an enormous influence on the outcome of the Russian Bolshevik Communist Revolution of 1917, and the resulting deaths of approximately 42 million people, because his writings had an enormous influence on Nikolai Lenin. Nechayev wrote: "Our cause is terrible, complete, universal and pitiless destruction... Let us unite with the savage, criminal world, these true and only revolutionists of Russia." 555
Only a believer in Situation Ethics could ever say such a thing. There are no moral absolutes when complete destruction is your goal. And that was the goal of this revolutionary.
He continued: "The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no personal interests, no business affairs, no emotions, no attachments, no property and no name.
Everything in him is wholly absorbed in the single thought and the single passion for revolution.
The revolutionary knows... he has broken all bonds which tie him to social order and the civilized world with all its laws, moralities and customs and with its generally accepted conventions.
The object is perpetually the same: the surest and quickest way of destroying the whole filthy order.
The revolutionary... despises and hates the existing social morality...
For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in his way.
[The revolutionary] must be tyrannical toward others. All the gentle and enervating sentiments of kinship, love, friendship, gratitude, and even honor must be suppressed in him and give place to the cold and single-minded passion for revolution."
"Do not pity... Kill in public places if these base rascals dare to enter them, kill in houses, kill in villages.
Remember, those who will not side with us will be against us.
Whoever is against us is our enemy. And we must destroy enemies by all means." 556
What this young revolutionary wrote about was unrestricted Situation Ethics, where there absolutely is no right and wrong. NechayeVs thoughts are the logical result of this type of thinking. Once the revolutionary accepts this ethical code, anything is permitted. Murder, looting, pillaging, and torture become acceptable behavior.
And this is the ethical code of the Humanist.
126
Situation Ethics leads some into a position of hating the entire society, and of wishing to destroy the whole social fabric, the "old world order." Then those who wish to fill the void can remake the world. And the new world that will be created will be called The New World Order.
Remember that Nechayev wrote that the revolutionary intended to "destroy the whole filthy order." The goal of the revolutionary was to destroy the "old world order" and replace it with the "New World Order."
Perhaps the major purpose of Situation Ethics was made clear in a book written by Aldous Huxley entitled BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED. He identified the destruction of the individual as the primary goal of this new ethical teaching. He wrote: "... a new Social Ethic is replacing our traditional ethical system -- the system in which the individual is primary.
... the social whole has greater worth and significance than its individual parts,... that the rights of the collectivity take precedence over... the Rights of Man." 557
But Situation Ethics is not new. It is as old as the Bible.
Isaiah the prophet was moved to write about the system in about 740 B.C. He wrote this in Isaiah 5:20-21 in the Old Testament of the Bible: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."
Situation Ethics calls evil good and good evil.
And it is the philosophy of the Humanists, the Communists and some of the Masons.
And it is rapidly becoming the morality of America.
127
0 comments: