Over the years my approach to ethical decision making has been primarily guided by the thinking of H. Richard Niebuhr in his book The Responsible Self. Here’s a quick summary of his thinking.
Niebuhr begins by analyzing the term ‘responsibility.’ At its core it entails the notion of response. That is, our efforts to be moral are at their core a response to a given situation. Our initial move should be to ask “What is going on here?” What is the context in which the decision is being made and what is the most appropriate or “fitting” response to it?
In coming to a conclusion about these questions one must consider such factors as who is involved, where and when am I situated, and how and why has this situation arisen? Niebuhr calls these the “interpretive” dimension of our decision making. Secondly, we should consider the social dimension of our own existence, namely the relationships and communities in which we are involved and their respective importance in our decision making.
A third issue to consider is the historical dimension in which we find ourselves. What factors in the past have brought me to this decision point and where might my response lead? Finally we must acknowledge our own “absolute dependence” on a reality that extends beyond our present existence, what some have called our awareness of our “absolute dependence” on forces and realities beyond our own lives. It is here that Niebuhr indicates the possibility of a Divine Reality.
In a Christian context this final factor focuses on the notion of agape or love. Niebuhr sees this as neither a matter of obligation nor emotion. Rather, agape entails a genuine concern for the ultimate well-being of those involved in this particular context. It may involve putting one’s self at risk for another person. The story of the “Good Samaritan” captures the essence of this form of love.
The Samaritan responded to the needs of this person in a direct and thorough manner. This notion of agape also involves an aspect of social justice since it implies the need to do something about the socio-political dynamics leading to this concrete historical situation. These, then, are the dimensions of Niebuhr’s notion of mature ethical responsibility. In the end one should choose the course of action that is the most fitting response in light of the above factors.
Let’s take a concrete example that will provide specifics for our consideration of what a fitting response might be. Many years ago during my final year at a specific college one of my very best students ever, Gay, was taking an Independent course with me was and did not finish by the end of the semester. She went off to Texas with her new husband so he could start graduate school at SMU. I gave her the usual two month extension. After month had gone bye she wrote saying that she was having a hard time with all the distractions of a newlywed but was working hard on her paper. She was also taking graduate courses at SMU as a “special student”, pending her graduation.
After another month I wrote to her saying that I thought all this was silly since she had been such an outstanding student. I said I would give her an “A” and she could finish up the paper as she could. I went ahead and submitted her “A” grade. However, before she got my letter Gay and her husband made a surprise visit to campus, whereupon she ran into the Dean and told him she was still working hard on the paper. Naturally, the Dean called me in and read me the riot- act for having “lied” to him, etc. Anyway, she finished her “A” paper and that was that. The Dean never really forgave me for breaching college ethical standards.
In that context I actually went through Niebuhr’s process of determining what was the “responsible”, or “fitting” response to the situation. I determined that since (1) Gay was an outstanding student (4.0), and (2) since she had turned the corner on her college career she need not be bogged down with this last assignment, and (3) since no other students were involved, it was ethical on my part to excuse her from finishing the course. It was the fitting, the responsible, thing to do. Of course, the Dean did not agree. Nothing more came of it. I would do it again.
As a footnote I must add that Gay went on to Divinity School at SMU, then did her Ph.D. degree at Vanderbilt where she served as Methodist Chaplin and eventually became the Professor of Christian Ethics. Moreover, ironically, she wrote her Dissertation on H. Richard Niebuhr’s ethical views. She and I have remained good friends all these years, but I can’t remember whether I ever told her the whole story.
So, what do you think, and why?

Roman philosophy after the Greeks and prior to the Christians was dominated by four schools of thought: the Stoics, the Skeptics, the Epicureans, and certain metaphysical Mystics. The Stoics got their name from the fact that they used to walk around philosophizing on the porch of the marketplace in Athens. The Greek word for porch is “Stoa”. These thinkers, led by one Zeno (334-262 BCE) were best characterized by their belief in the absolute rationality of the way of the universe.
The Stoics were rationalistic materialists, believing that reality is essentially physical and that its ways can only be understood by way of rational principles. At the same time, however, they also thought that the only way for humans to be happy as well as good is to follow a totally rational way of life. Emotions must never be allowed to cloud one’s reasoning.
Surprisingly, the Stoics also believed that the universe is Divine, making them “pantheists”. One problem with which they had to deal was the co-ordination of their belief in the divinity of the universe and the human capacity for freewill. If the Universe is divine and rational, it would seem that there would be no need for or possibility of human choice. Everything should simply follow the Divine will.
Nonetheless, humans are very often faced with choices between the right or good and what is wrong or evil. This logical difficulty dogged Stoic thinkers throughout their period of dominance. Aside from Zeno the most prominent Stoics were Epictetus and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius. It has remained a puzzle just how an Emperor can believe that the course of the world is fully determined and still make responsible decisions about issues daily facing the Empire.
Pretty much the polar opposite of the Stoics were the Epicureans. Following the teachings of Epicurus. These thinkers sought to follow the values of a life of pleasure. It is from them that we, erroneously, get the term ‘epicurean’ for someone who knows and enjoys fine foods and wines. The followers of Epicurus sought happiness, not crass pleasure, and argued that this is the natural and rational way of life. They sought peace of mind and a balance of the emotions so as never to be off-balance emotionally. They lived in a secluded Garden where they could practice self-control and the pleasures of the mind. They differed markedly from the “hedonists” who sought pleasure for its own sake.
The Skeptic school of Roman thought claimed that it is not possible to know the truth about what is real, good, etc. and thus one should avoid committing oneself to any one school of thought or any ultimate conclusions. The Skeptics taught that the only truth is that knowing the truth is beyond human capacities. They did not question appearances, but only those theories that would seek to explain them as something other than what they appear to be. The Skeptics were especially suspicious of sensory experience, as well as normal teachings of morality.
Plotinus was the primary proponent of the school of thought known as Neoplatonism. These thinkers roughly followed the teachings of Plato, but gave them a decidedly “mystical” twist. Plotinus combined a Platonic description of reality and knowledge, but with a mystical and religious twist. Plotinus saw reality as composed of an hierarchy of levels, like a fountain, with the Divine at the apex and pure matter or nothingness at the bottom. He saw life’s goal to be that of striving for ever higher levels of reality and knowledge.
These were the major schools of philosophical/religious thought between the Greek and the Christian ways of thinking about reality and our knowledge of it, along with how we ought to live accordingly. Many of these emphases, along with the major teachings of Plato and Aristotle, found their way into Medieval thought. Indeed, there are vestiges of each of them still alive within the systems of thought developed by modern and contemporary thinkers.