DOWNLOAD (MS-Word document)

All the Ethical Options

所有倫理的選擇

該思拉著（Norman L. Geisler），孔祥烱譯

Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong. Christian ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong for a Christian. This is a book on Christian ethics. Since Christians base their beliefs on God’s revelation in Scripture, the Bible will be cited as an authority for conclusions drawn here (see chap. 8).

倫理學處理道德上的正確和錯誤；基督教倫理學處理一個基督徒在道德上的正確和錯誤；這是一本關於基督教倫理學的書。由於基督徒的信仰建基於神在聖經中的啟示，聖經將被引用為導出結論的權威。

God has not limited himself to revelation in Scripture; he also has a general revelation in nature (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-14). Since God’s moral character does not change, it should be expected that there will be similarities and overlaps between God’s natural and supernatural revelations. However, the focus of this book is not God’s natural law for all people, but his divine law for believers.

神並沒有限制自己的啟示只出現在聖經，祂在大自然中也有普遍啟示（羅1:19-20; 2:12-14）。由於神的道德品格不會改變，神自然和超自然的啟示也應該有相似和重疊。然而，這本書的重點不是神給所有人的自然法律，而是神給信徒的神聖法律。

Definitions of Ethics

（A）倫理的定義

Ethics deals with what is right and wrong morally. Numerous theories have been proposed concerning what is meant by a morally good action (see chap. 8). But it is sufficient here to note the distinguishing characteristics of Christian ethics, each of which will be briefly discussed here.

倫理涉及在道德上什麼是正確和錯誤。許多理論解釋良好道德行動的意義。在這裏，我們只提及基督教倫理的顯著特點，並簡要討論每一點。

Christian Ethics Is Based on God’s Will

（一）基督教倫理基於神的旨意

Christian ethics is a form of the divine-command position. An ethical duty is something we ought to do. It is a divine prescription. Of course, the ethical imperatives that God gives are in accord with his unchangeable moral character. That is, God wills what is right in accordance with his own moral attributes. “Be holy, because I am holy,” the Lord commanded Israel (Lev. 11:45). “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect,” Jesus said to his disciples (Matt. 5:48). “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18). So we should not lie either. “God is love” (1 John 4:16), and so Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:39). In brief, Christian ethics is based on God’s will, but God never wills anything contrary to his unchanging moral character.

基督教倫理的形式是神聖命令。道德責任是我們應該做的；這是一種神聖的指令。當然，神給我們的倫理命令是照著祂不變的道德品格；也就是說，神照著祂自己的道德屬性意願正確的事。神吩咐以色列：「所以你們要聖潔，因為我是聖潔的。」（利11:45）耶穌吩咐祂的門徒：「所以你們要完全，像你們的天父完全一樣。」（太5:48）「神決不能說謊。」（來6:18）所以我們也不應該說謊。「神是愛。」（約壹4:16）所以耶穌說：「要愛人如己。」（太22:39）簡言之，基督教倫理是基於神的旨意，但神的意願從來不會違背神不變的道德品格。

Christian Ethics Is Absolute

（二）基督教倫理是絕對的

Since God’s moral character does not change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17), it follows that moral obligations flowing from his nature are absolute. That is, they are always binding everywhere on everyone. Of course, not everything God wills flows necessarily from his unchanging nature. Some things are merely in accord with his nature but flow freely from his will. For example, God chose to test Adam and Eve’s moral obedience by forbidding them to eat a specific fruit on a tree (Gen. 2:16-17). Although it was morally wrong for Adam and Eve to disobey that command, we are no longer bound by that command today. That command was based on God’s will and did not flow necessarily from his nature.

由於神的道德品格永不改變（瑪3:6; 雅1:17），因此，從祂而出的道德義務也是絕對的；也就是說，它們在所有時間和對所有人都具有約束力。當然，並非所有神的意願都必定出於祂不變的本性；有些事符合祂的本性，但出自祂的意志。例如，神試驗亞當與夏娃的道德服從性，禁止他們吃特定樹上的水果（創2:16-17）。雖然亞當與夏娃違背該命令是道德的錯誤，我們今天不再受該命令限制；該命令是基於神的意志，並非出於祂的本性。

On the other hand, God’s command not to murder (Gen. 9:6) applied before the law was given to Moses, under the law of Moses (Exod. 20:13), and also since the time of Moses (Rom. 13:9). In brief, murder is wrong at all times and all places and for all people. This is true because humans are created in the “image of God” (Gen. 1:27; 9:6). This includes a moral likeness to God (Col. 3:10; James 3:9). And whatever is traceable to God’s unchanging moral character is a moral absolute. This includes such moral obligations as holiness, justice, love, truthfulness, and mercy. Other commands flowing from God’s will, but not necessarily from his nature, are equally binding on a believer, but they are not absolute. That is, they must be obeyed because God prescribed them, but he did not prescribe them for all people, times, and places. Absolute moral duties, on the contrary, are binding on all people at all times and in all places.

另一方面，神命令人不可謀殺（創9:6），這命令應用於摩西律法之前，在摩西律法之內（出20:13），也在摩西時代之後（羅13:9）。簡言之，謀殺在所有時間、所有地方和所有人都是錯的；這是因為人類是照著「神的形像」而創造（創1:27; 9:6）；這包括在道德上與神相似（西3:10; 雅3:9）。任何出於神不變的道德品格的，就是絕對的；包括道德義務，如聖潔、公義、愛、誠實和憐憫。其他出於神意願的命令，但不一定出於祂的本性者，對信徒具有同樣約束力，但卻不是絕對的；也就是說，信徒必須服從，因為是神的規定，但祂並沒有規定是為所有的人、所有時間和所有地方。相反地，絕對的道德責任則對所有人，在所有時間和所有地方都具有約束力。

Christian Ethics Is Based on God’s Revelation

（三）基督教倫理基於神的啟示

Christian ethics is based on God’s commands, the revelation of which is both general (Rom. 1:19-20; 2:12-15) and special (2:18; 3:2). God has revealed himself both in nature (Ps. 19:1-6) and in Scripture (19:7-14). General revelation contains God’s commands for all people. Special revelation declares his will for believers. But in either case, the basis of human ethical responsibility is divine revelation.

基督教倫理是基於神的命令，神的啟示是普遍性的（羅1:19-20; 2:12-15），也是特殊性的（羅2:18; 3:2）。神將自己啟示在大自然中（詩19:1-6）和聖經中（詩19:7-14）。普遍啟示包含神對所有的人的命令；特殊啟示則向信徒宣佈。但在兩種情況下，人類倫理責任的基礎都是神聖的啟示。

Failure to recognize God as the source of moral duty does not exonerate anyone, even an atheist, from their moral duty. For “when Gentiles, who do not have the law [of Moses], do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:14-15). That is, even if unbelievers do not have the moral law in their minds, they still have it written on their hearts. Even if they do not know it by way of cognition, they show it by way of inclination.

不承認神為道德的來源並不免除任何人的道德責任，包括無神論者。因為「沒有律法的外邦人，若順着本性行 [摩西的] 律法上的事，他們雖然沒有律法，自己就是自己的律法．這是顯出律法的功用刻在他們心裏。」（羅2:14-15）也就是說，即使不信的人沒有道德律在他們的思想內，道德律已寫在他們的心中；即使他們不透過認識而知道它，他們亦在傾向上表現出來。

Christian Ethics Is Prescriptive

（四）基督教倫理是指令性的

Since moral rightness is prescribed by a moral God, it is prescriptive. For there is no moral law without a moral Lawgiver; there is no moral legislation without a moral Legislator. So Christian ethics by its very nature is prescriptive, not descriptive. Ethics deals with what ought to be, not with what is. Christians do not find their ethical duties in the standard of Christians but in the standard for Christians—the Bible.

由於道德的神規定道德正當性，故它是指令性的。因為沒有道德的立法者，就沒有道德律；沒有道德的立法議員，就沒有道德法律。所以，基督教倫理在本質上是指令性的，不是描述性的。倫理涉及「應該做什麼」，而不涉及「是什麼」。基督徒的道德責任並不「在」基督徒的標準中找到，而是在「為基督徒設立的」標準中找到，就是聖經。

From a Christian point of view, a purely descriptive ethic is no ethic at all. Describing human behavior is the task of sociology. But prescribing human behavior is the province of morality. The attempt to derive morals from mores is, as we have already noted, the “is-ought” fallacy. What people actually do is not the basis for what they ought to do. If it were, then people ought to lie, cheat, steal, and murder, since these things are done all the time.

從基督教的角度來看，一個純粹描述性的倫理不是真倫理。描述人的行為是社會學的任務；但是，規定人的行為就是道德的領域。我們已經指出，嘗試從習俗推論出道德，是「『是』變成『應該』」的謬論；人實際的行動不能成為人應該做什麼的依據。若是可以這樣推論，那麼人應該撒謊、欺騙、偷竊和謀殺，因為人每天都做這些事。

Christian Ethics Is Deontological

（五）基督教倫理是義務論的

Ethical systems can be broadly divided into two categories, deontological (duty-centered) and teleological (end-centered). This is sometimes called consequentialism since the value of an act is determined by its consequence. Christian ethics is deontological. Utilitarianism is an example of a teleological ethic. The nature of a deontological ethic can be seen more clearly by contrast with a teleological view (see table 1.1 on the next page).

倫理系統大致可分為兩大類，義務論（deontological，以責任為中心）和目的論（teleological，以目的為中心），後者有時也被稱為後果主義，因為行動的價值取決於它的後果。基督教倫理是義務論的；功利主義就是一種目的論倫理的例子。義務論倫理的特徵可以從與目的論對比中清楚地看見（見下面表1）。

A couple of illustrations will clarify this point. Someone tries to rescue a drowning person but fails. According to one form of teleological ethic, this was not a good act because it did not have good results. Since the results determine the goodness of the act, and the results were not good, then it follows that the attempted rescue was not a good act.

兩個例子就會澄清這一點。有人試圖營救失足落水者，但是失敗。根據目的論倫理觀中一種形式，這不是一個好行為，因為它沒有好的後果；由於後果確定行為良好與否，而後果並不好，自然地，營救的嘗試不是一個好行為。

Yet a more sophisticated form of teleological (utilitarian) ethic might argue that the attempt was good, even though it failed, because it had a good effect on society. People heard about it and were encouraged to help rescue others in the future. But even here the attempted act of rescue that failed was not good in itself. Rather, it would have been good if and only if it had brought some good results, either for the drowning person or for someone else.

不過，目的論（功利主義）倫理中一個改進的形式可以辯說，雖然嘗試失敗，但它是好的，因為它對社會有良好的影響；人們聽了這件事，就被鼓勵在未來幫助拯救他人。但即使如此，嘗試營救的行動而失敗仍然在本身是不好的。只有為溺水者或其他人帶來好結果，它才能是好事。

By contrast, the Christian ethic is deontological and insists that even some acts that fail are good. Christians believe, for example, that it is better to have loved and to have lost than not to have loved at all. Christians believe that the cross was not a failure simply because only some will be saved. It was sufficient for all even if it is efficient only for those who believe. The Christian ethic insists that it is good to work against bigotry and racism, even if one fails. This is so because moral actions that reflect God’s nature are good whether they are successful or not. Good for the Christian is not determined in a lottery. In life the winner is not always right.

與此相反，基督教倫理是道義論的，它堅持一些失敗的行為仍然是好的。例如，基督徒相信，經驗愛而失敗比沒有經驗愛更好。基督徒相信，十字架不是一個失敗，不單因為有人被拯救；雖然它只對相信的人有效，但卻足夠拯救所有人。基督教倫理堅持認為，反對偏見和種族主義雖然失敗仍然是好的；因為道德行動反映了神的本性，無論成功與否也是好的。對於基督徒，良好與否不用抽獎決定；在生命中，贏家並不一定正確。

TABLE 1.1
Two Views of Ethics

Deontological Ethic	Teleological Ethic
Rule determines the result.	Result determines the rule.
Rule is the basis of the act.	Result is the basis of the act.
Rule is good regardless of result.	Rule is good because of result.
Result is always calculated within the rules.	Result is sometimes used to break rules.

表1
倫理學兩個觀點

義務論倫理 Deontological Ethic	目的論倫理 Teleological Ethic
規則決定結果	結果決定規則
規則是行動的基礎	結果是行動的基礎
不論結果如何，規則是好的	規則是好的因為結果是好的
結果的計算一定在規則之內	結果有時用來違背規則

However, Christian ethics does not neglect results. Simply because results do not determine what is right does not mean that it is not right to consider results. Indeed, results of actions are important in Christian ethics. For example, a Christian should calculate in which direction a gun is pointing before he pulls the trigger. Drivers need to estimate the possible consequence of their speed in relation to other objects. Speakers are responsible for calculating the possible effects of their words on others. Christians have a duty to anticipate the results of not being immunized to serious diseases, and so on.

然而，基督教倫理並未忽視結果。雖然結果並不能決定什麼是正確的，但並不表示考慮結果是不正確的；事實上，在基督教倫理中，行動的結果是重要的。例如，一個基督徒應該先計算他的槍指向哪個方向，然後才扣動扳機；司機需要估計他們的速度對其他事物可能引致的結果；發言者有責任計算自己的言語對他人可能的影響；基督徒有責任估計不接受嚴重疾病的免疫的結果等等。

In all the foregoing illustrations, however, there is an important difference between the deontological use of results and a teleological use of them. In Christian ethics these results are all calculated within rules or norms. That is, no anticipated result as such can be used as a justification for breaking any God-given moral law. Utilitarians, on the other hand, use anticipated results to break moral rules. In fact, they use results to make the rules. Existing rules can be broken if the expected results call for it. For example, while Christian ethics allows for inoculation for disease, it does not allow for infanticide to purify the genetic stock of the human race; in this case the end result is used to justify the use of an evil means. In brief, the end may justify the use of good means, but it does not justify the use of any means, certainly not evil ones.

但是，在上述所有實例中，以道義論使用結果的方法，比對以目的論使用結果的方法，有一個重要的區別。在基督教倫理中，結果只能在規則或規範中計算；也就是說，沒有預期的結果可以使違反神賦予的道德律成為合理。另一方面，功利主義者利用預期的結果去違反道德規則；事實上，他們用結果來制定規則；如果需要的話，為了預期的結果就可以違反現有的規則。例如，雖然基督教倫理允許預防疾病的注射，但它不允許以殺嬰來淨化人類的遺傳基因，因為這是利用最終的結果去使邪惡的手段成為合理。簡言之，結果可以使良好的手段成為合理，但它不能使任何手段成為合理，邪惡的手段當然不能。

Various Views on Ethics

（B）倫理的各種觀點

There are only six major ethical systems, each designated by its answer to the question Are there any objective ethical laws? That is, are any moral laws not purely subjective but actually binding on humans in general?

主要的倫理系統只有六個，相異處在每一個如何回答這問題：是否有任何客觀的道德律？也就是說，是否有任何非純粹主觀的道德律，但實際上對人類有廣泛約束力？

In answer, antinomianism says there are no moral laws. Situationism affirms there is one absolute law. Generalism claims there are some general laws but no absolute ones. Unqualified absolutism believes in many absolute laws that never conflict. Conflicting absolutism contends there are many absolute norms that sometimes conflict, and we are obligated to do the lesser evil. Graded absolutism holds that many absolute laws sometimes conflict, and we are responsible for obeying the higher law.

無規範主義的答案是，沒有道德律。 處境主義肯定有一個絕對規律。廣泛主義主張有一些一般規律，但沒有絕對的。無條件絕對主義相信很多絕對法律，它們從來沒有衝突。有衝突絕對主義主張有許多絕對法律，它們有時會衝突，我們有義務去行較輕的罪惡。等級絕對主義主張有許多絕對法律，它們有時會衝突，我們有責任去遵守的最高法律。

Differences between Various Views

（一）各種觀點的差異

Of the six basic ethical views, two deny all objectively absolute moral laws. Of them, antinomianism denies all universal and general moral laws. Generalism, on the other hand, denies only universal moral laws but holds to general ones. That is, there are some objective moral laws that are binding most of the time but not necessarily all the time.

在這六個基本倫理觀中，兩個拒絕所有客觀的絕對道德律。其中，無規範主義拒絕所有的普遍性和一般性的道德律。另一方面，廣泛主義否認普遍性的道德律，只接受一般性的道德律；也就是說，有一些客觀的道德律，它們大部分時間有約束力，但並非在所有時間。

Four ethical views claim to be forms of absolutism. Of these, situationism believes in only one absolute, while the others believe in two or more absolutes. Of them, unqualified absolutism contends that these absolute moral principles never conflict, while the other two believe that they sometimes do conflict. Of the two that believe these moral principles sometimes conflict, conflicting absolutism contends that we are responsible to do the lesser evil but guilty for whichever one we break. On the other hand, graded absolutism holds that our responsibility is to obey the greater commandment. Consequently, we are not guilty for not following the lesser commandment in conflict with it.

有四個倫理觀自稱在形式上是絕對主義。其中處境主義相信只有一個絕對道德律，而其他三個相信有兩個或以上絕對道德律。無條件絕對主義主張這些絕對道德律永不衝突，而其他兩個相信它們有時也發生衝突。這兩個中，有衝突絕對主義主張我們有責任去行較輕的罪惡，但違反道德律需要承受罪咎。另一方面，等級絕對主義主張我們的責任是服從更大的誡命；因此，不服從較小的誡命並無罪咎。

Examples of the Six Major Ethical Views

（二）六大倫理觀

Corrie ten Boom tells how she lied to save Jews from the Nazi death camps. During U.S. Senate hearings on the Iran-Contra issue, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North testified that, in the process of performing his duties, he had lied to save innocent lives. North said, “I had to weigh lying and lives.”

般瑪（Corrie ten Boom）說謊拯救猶太人逃過納粹死亡集中營。在美國參議院聆聽伊朗門事件時，諾夫中校（Oliver North）作証說，在履行職責過程中，他說謊挽救無辜的生命；他說：「我不得不衡量說謊及生命。」

In a number of biblical stories, people lied to save lives. The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys Pharaoh had commanded them to kill (Exod. 1:15-19). Rahab lied to save the lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Josh. 2).

在幾個聖經故事中，人們說謊拯救生命。希伯來的收生婆說謊拯救法老吩咐他們殺害的男嬰（出1:15-19）；喇合在耶利哥說謊拯救猶太人探子的生命（書2章）。

Is it ever right to lie to save a life? This issue will serve to focus the differences among the six basic ethical positions.

以說謊拯救生命可以是正確的嗎？這個問題將成為分別六種基本倫理觀的焦點。

Lying is neither right nor wrong: there are no laws. Antinomianism asserts that lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. It affirms that there are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds. We are literally without a moral law to decide the issue.

[1] 說謊是既不對也不錯：沒有任何法律。無規範主義斷言，以說謊拯救生命既不對也不錯；這主義肯定沒有任何客觀的道德原則，可以判斷問題的對與錯。這個問題必須決定於主觀的、個人的或實用的理由，但客觀上沒有任何道德理由，我們沒有道德律來決定這問題。

Lying is generally wrong: there are no universal laws. Generalism claims that lying is generally wrong. As a rule, lying is wrong, but in specific cases this general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are good, then the lie is right. Most generalists believe that lying to save a life is right because in this case the end justifies the means necessary to attain it. However, lying in general is wrong.

[2] 說謊一般是錯誤的：有沒有普遍的法律。廣泛主義認為說謊一般是錯誤的。根據規則，說謊是錯的，但在具體情況下，這一般的規則可以被違反；由於沒有普遍的道德律，一個謊言的對與錯將取決於結果。如果結果是好的，那麼謊言是正確的。大多數廣泛主義者相信以說謊拯救生命是對的，因為在這種情況下，結果使達到結果的必要手段成為合理。不過，說謊一般是錯誤的。

Lying is sometimes right: there is only one universal law. Situationism claims that there is only one absolute moral law, and telling the truth is not it. Love is the only absolute, and lying may be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving thing to do. Hence, lying is sometimes right. Indeed, any moral rule except love can and should be broken for love’s sake. Everything else is relative; only one thing is absolute. Thus the situationist believes that lying to save lives is morally justified.

[3] 說謊有時是對的：只有一個普遍法律。處境主義認為，只有一個絕對的道德律，說實話不是這道德律。愛是唯一的絕對，而說謊可能是愛的行動；事實上，說謊是為了挽救一個生命是愛的行動；因此，說謊有時是正確的。除了愛，任何道德規則都可以而且應該因愛的緣故被違反；一切都是相對的；只有一件事是絕對的。因此，處境主義者認為以說謊拯救生命在道德上是合理的。

Lying is always wrong: there are many nonconflicting laws. Unqualified absolutism believes that there are many absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken. Truth is such a law. Therefore, one must always tell the truth, even if someone dies as a result of it. Truth is absolute, and absolutes cannot be broken. Therefore, there are no exceptions to telling the truth. Results are never used as a rationale to break rules, even if the results are desirable.

[4] 說謊是永遠是錯的：有許多不衝突的法律。無條件絕對主義相信，有許多絕對的道德律，任何一個都不能被違反。誠實是一條法律；因此，我們必須常常講真話，即使講真話的結果是有人死了。誠實是絕對的，絕對不能被違反；因此，講真話不會有例外。永遠不可用結果作為違反規則的理由，即使結果是稱心的。

Lying is forgivable: there are many conflicting laws. Conflicting absolutism recognizes that we live in an evil world, where absolute moral laws sometimes run into inevitable conflict. In such cases it is our moral duty to do the lesser evil. We must break the lesser law and plead mercy. For instance, we should lie to save the life and then ask for forgiveness for breaking God’s absolute moral law. Our moral dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable, but we are culpable anyway. God cannot change his absolute moral prescriptions because of our moral predicaments.

[5] 說謊是可原諒的：有許多相互衝突的法律。有衝突絕對主義認識到，我們生活在一個邪惡的世界，絕對的道德律有時會遇到不可避免的衝突。在這種情況下，我們的道德責任是兩害取其輕。我們必須違反較小的法律，然後求憐憫。例如，我們應該以說謊拯救生命，然後求神饒恕違反神絕對道德律的罪。有時我們不可避免道德困境，但我們要承受罪責。神不能因我們的道德困境，改變他的絕對的道德指令。

Lying is sometimes right: there are higher laws. Graded absolutism holds that there are many moral absolutes, and they sometimes conflict. However, some laws are higher than others, so when there is an unavoidable conflict, it is our duty to follow the higher moral law. God does not blame us for what we could not avoid. Thus he exempts us from responsibility to follow the lower law in view of the overriding obligation to obey the higher law. Many graded absolutists believe that mercy to the innocent is a greater moral duty than telling truth to the guilty. Hence, they are convinced that it is right in such cases to lie in order to save a life.

[6] 說謊有時是正確的：有更高的法律。等級絕對主義認為有許多道德的絕對，而他們有時發生衝突。然而，有些法律高過其他法律，所以有不可避免的衝突時，我們的責任是遵循更高的道德法律。神不會因不能避免的事責怪我們；因此，祂豁免我們遵守較低法律的責任，因為首要的義務是遵守的較高法律。很多等級絕對主義者相信，憐憫無辜者高於向有罪者講真話；因此，他們相信，在這種情況下，以說謊拯救生命是正確的。

The diagram on the next page is a logical summary of the six major views.

下面的圖表是一個對六大觀點的邏輯性總結。

In summary, antinomianism sets forth its view to the exclusion of all objective moral laws. Generalism claims that there are exceptions to moral laws. Situationism holds one moral absolute to the exclusion of all others. Unqualified absolutism insists that there is always an escape from the apparent conflict in absolute moral laws. Conflicting absolutism contends that when moral laws conflict, doing the lesser evil is excusable. And graded absolutism holds that when moral laws conflict, God grants an exemption to the lower law in view of our duty to obey the higher law. Each of these views will be examined in the next several chapters.

總括說，無規範主義的觀點是排除所有客觀道德律。廣泛主義主張道德律有例外。處境主義主張只有一個絕對道德律，排除其他所有道德律。無條件絕對主義強調在表面的絕對道德律衝突中，必定有一個逃避的方法。有衝突絕對主義主張當道德律衝突時，行較輕的惡是可以原諒的。等級絕對主義主張當道德律衝突時，神賜下對較低道德律的豁免，因為我們有責任遵守的最高的道德律。下面各章將研究每一個觀點。

Chart 1.1
Six Major Ethical Views

Moral Principles↓
Some↓	None *Antinomianism*
Absolute↓	General *Generalism*
Many Absolutism↓	One *Situationism*
Sometimes Conflict↓	Never Conflict *Nonconflicting* *Absolutism*
Not Guilty (greater good) *Graded Absolutism*	Guilty (lesser evil) *Conflicting Absolutism*

表2
六大倫理觀

道德原則↓
有一些↓	沒有無規範主義
絕對性↓	一般性廣泛主義
很多絕對主義↓	只有一個處境主義
有時衝突↓	永不衝突無衝突絕對主義
沒有罪咎（更大的善）等級絕對主義	有罪咎（較輕的惡）有衝突絕對主義