In a few articles here we have referred to a "moral hierarchy" and distinguished it from situational ethics. The purpose of this brief essay is to briefly explain what a "moral hierarchy" is, and why it is not, as it is sometimes erroneously labeled, "situational ethics."

Situational ethics has been defined as one in which, "absolute standards are considered less important than the requirements of a particular situation." In contrast, the "moral hierarchy" idea is also called "graded absolutism" (most often this phrase is associated with Norman Geisler) -- it recognizes absolute standard as more important than requirements; but it also examines contexts within which two absolutes are in conflict, and determines which absolute takes precedence.

The classic example remains most effective, so despite Godwin's Law, we'll continue to use it.

Two commonly-held moral absolutes may be recognized:

1. Human life should be preserved.
2. It is wrong to lie.

The critical issue emerges when we come to a context within which two moral absolutes conflict with one another. An example would be those who, during German occupation of WW2 Europe, hid Jews or other persecuted persons in their cellars.

If such a person were asked by a Nazi officer, "Are you hiding Jews in your cellar?", most of course would say no (as their own activities presuppose). Yet is this not a violation of the second absolute? Yes, but graded absolutism recognizes that it is better to follow the first absolute (preserve life) rather than the second one (don't lie) because the first one is a more important rule. It is impossible to follow both absolutes; therefore, one must be chosen.

Graded absolutism is often mistaken for situational ethics because it is hypothesized that in certain situations, one absolute should be taken over another: For example, many of our arguments point out that specific situations in the Ancient Near East forced the choice of one absolute over another. However, one does not merely make such choices arbitrarily; it is necessary to thoroughly examine a context in order to determine which absolute deserves superior rank -- something that critics often do not do, because they see only one absolute in view and are neglectful of others being involved.