MORAL SITUATIONISM

Moral situationism refers to the view that what ought to be done is determined not by a rule or principle of action, but rather by particular features of the situation. For example, according to this general class of moral theories, whether a leader ought to lie depends on the necessity of the circumstances in which he finds himself. In some circumstances, lying can be the right thing to do because of facts about the situation. However, in circumstances with different facts, it would be wrong to tell a lie. So the moral situationist has a complicated answer to questions about whether leaders are justified in breaking the rules. Leaders, like everyone else, are confronted with exceptional circumstances in everyday life, and the moral challenge is to determine what actions are necessary.

Although this approach to ethics is sometimes derided as “mere situationism,” it must be distinguished from the view that “[e]very situation has only its particularity.” The complexity of moral situationism can make it attractive to think “it all depends,” especially to students of leadership. Given the variety of circumstances leaders face, it is often tempting to think that leaders must approach each situation anew and decide what to do, as though there are no generalizations about morality. The temptation is to conclude that nothing about morality carries over from one set of circumstances to the next.