what's the situation

  Is there such a thing as situational morality? I don't believe there is, yet I sure hear a lot of folks defending just that. I have to say it leaves me a bit confused. If I believe an action to be wrong, it is always wrong. It is especially true with those things we all agree is wrong, like killing another human being. I think we all agree that everyone has the right to life. Is it ever a choice to kill someone? No, I don't believe it is, although there are times when you have no choice. And that is where I get confused. If someone is attempting to kill me or someone else I will attempt to kill them first. Is it a choice? No, I think it is a reaction. I believe it is an inherent reaction, the will to survive is in all of us. The reaction varies with the individual some acting heroically and others cowering in fear. Is either of those actions a choice? No, I don't think they are. That is the purpose of training, to ingrain a specific reaction into the individual. Responses can be taught! Are our moral values also learned? Yes they are, they are taught. Some will adhere to those values, while others will practice situational morality. 

 So I'm thinking maybe what we are talking about is not morality, but legality. There are situations when killing another human being is a choice. Situational legality. Sometimes the action is right, sometimes the action is wrong. The only difference being the ability to justify ( provide justice ) for the action in any given situation. The death penalty is an example of that. If a person has been shown to have killed another, in a premeditated fashion, should they also be put to death? Is that a viable option? Situational legality comes into play here. In what situation would the death penalty be an option? The modern thinking is never. It is never a choice to execute anyone, no matter the severity of their crimes against humanity! Yet, in contrast, it is a choice to kill an unborn baby. What is the justification for that? It's a legal precedent, Roe V Wade. Morality ( religious belief ) is dismissed altogether in this situation and the legality vigorously defended. It's a situational legality.

 Is it possible to separate morality and legality? The question is better known as, the separation of church and state. In America that is the dream isn't it? That was the premise clearly stated in our founding documents. The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, etc. That's amendment one to the Constitution ratified in December of 1791. But we won our independence in 1776 right? Why did it take fifteen years for Congress to decide amendments were required to the original document? Short answer, politics. The Bill of Rights were added by demand from certain states. In fact, it was the promise that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution that gained its' ratification in the first place. The preamble to the Bill of Rights explained that the purpose was to; " prevent misconstruction or abuse of its' powers ( the federal government ) , and to extend the grounds of public confidence in the public. " Even then the lawyers were well aware of situational legalities. They insisted the federal government make a list of specific rights, guaranteed to the people! Rights were not to be confused with morality! The reason is a basic one. You can not write " laws of morality " as they pertain to government because in doing so you would be writing an ideology! The perfect example of that would be Islam. Their " religion " is intermixed with their government and therefore is an ideology. Think Sharia law! 

 And so after two hundred and forty three years we are still debating morality vs legality. There is no doubt the United States of America was founded on the basic tenets of Christianity. The protestants  were the dominant faction. Catholics, Jews and yes, Muslims were represented in America during its' founding. There was much debate about Article six. That's the one that says there shall never be a religious test in order to hold office. The concern then was a Muslim could one day become President. The thinking was it would take four or five hundred years. As you know that article remains and I don't think it will another two hundred years before a Muslim takes the office of President, some believe he already did! And just what was the underlying fear in that happening? The understanding that Islam is not a religion but an ideology. An ideology in opposition to the American dream. Remember what that dream was? The separation of Church and State! In Islam the church is the state! Is there situational legality in that system? Nope! No Bill of Rights.