Situationalism and Generalism

Two forms of antinomianism are situationalism and generalism. The former espouses that there is only one binding absolute in all situations, and often it is necessary to break general norms in order to keep the only binding moral law. The latter says that there are many principles that are generally binding and it is rarely plausible that breaking them results in greater goodness. In spite of their lawful claims, lawlessness is the reduction of both ethical positions.

Situationalism posits one binding law (also called one-norm absolutism.) For example, the one absolute may be “love.” Any other rule is non-binding and is only good insomuch as it promotes and does not come into conflict with love. So then where love would come into conflict with truth, for instance, love would trump truth; consequently, love may demand that one lie. However various proponents of situationalism propose alternate ideas to love as the one universal binding law. Situationalism is normative, absolute, conflict resolving, recognizes differing circumstances, and stresses individual personhood and responsibility. However, it fails in that it is too general, does not give clear definition to the one law, it does not refute the possibility of many norms, and there is no absolute way to determine or define the one absolute. While situationalism appears to give credence to law in its one absolute, it is reduced to antinomianism by the lack of definitude it gives to that law.

On the other hand generalism asserts many universal laws which are universally common, and generally binding. Like situationalism none of them are absolute in that they can be broken for the greater quantitative good. However, this cannot be deemed as one-norm absolutism because the many less binding general laws are normative. Generalism places greater stress on the utility of common laws and only in rare occasions would the greater quantitative good occur as a result of breaking the norm. Generalism recognizes the need for general norms, conflict resolution, and at least one universal unbreakable norm. However it fails in that the end cannot justify the means. It has no real definitive universal norms. Its means by which the end (the greater quantitative good) is achieved have no intrinsic value. Its absolute is non-definitive. Its “end” is ambiguous. Like situationalism, its lack of definitude renders generalism as nothing more than antinomianism.

The two systems of thought are just about the same, with the exception of were the stress is laid. In situationalism the stress is laid on proving that keeping the general does not violate the primary absolute principle. In generalism the stress is laid on proving that breaking the general does not in fact violate the primary absolute principle.

Both of these systems fail the biblical test in its indefinite unbreakable principle. As with all antinomian ethical systems, the individual is left to define the principles subjectively; moreover, he does what is right in his own eyes. Right and wrong are in essence left to mere feeling or sentiment to say the very least. Without absolute laws, binding all people at all times, any action can be vindicated by personal definition and perceived necessity.