Last updated 20:20, Thursday, 09 October 2008

TO MOST people Paul Newman was a very handsome man, a good actor and a great humanitarian and an interesting philosopher.

But to my friend Susan and I, he was a moral measurement and the foundation of our own moral code – situational ethics.

Situational ethics is quite easy to understand: there’s black, there’s white – and there’s Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward.

Susan and I both have strong moral beliefs that should be adhered to at all times.

Part of our code is that you should keep the 10 commandments, keep the new commandment to love one another, never hurt anyone and never be unfaithful to your partner.

BUT . . .

For every absolute there is an irresolute. Somewhere between black and white there is a shade of grey.

We had both come to the conclusion, long ago, that it was a good thing that there was an Ultimate Judge of human behaviour because neither of us were qualified to judge our fellow men. Not that that stopped us, you understand. But even when we were judging we at least knew we were doing the wrong thing.

Being unfaithful was the wrong thing but in some cases it was probably the right thing.

Enter situational ethics.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward were considered one of Hollywood’s enduring love stories. They had been married 50 years when he died recently and he was famous for his comment on his faithful love: “why go out for a hamburger when you have steak at home?”

But, of course, Paul Newman was married and he left his wife when he met Joanne Woodward.

The situational ethic means that if you meet the person who is obviously going to be the love of your life, your soul mate, your intended, then maybe the absolute doesn’t apply.

Stealing is wrong, but is stealing food to feed your family wrong or is it the Paul Newman factor – a situational ethic?

By the time you read this it will seem a bit late in the day to pay tribute to Newman, but I’m going to anyway.

There’s no doubting he was one of the most beautiful looking men in Hollywood. I was quite startled to discover that he was considerably older than my mother. So this handsome man whose picture I hung on my wall as a young girl was of my parent’s generation.

It is also not surprising that we should pick him as a rule of thumb for ethics-based problems because he seemed such a nice guy.

I doubt if any of us have ever read one bit of salacious gossip about him, and he has done so much for charity.

I read an article years ago which talked about how his Newman’s own brand of salad dressings and sauces had come about.

Apparently he made a really good ranch dressing or something that neighbours and friends enjoyed at barbecues. It was a neighbour who suggested he should mass produce it and sell it.

So Newman’s sauces and dressings, originally anyway, were his own actual recipes.

Maybe in later years they weren’t, but thousands of children across the United States and the world have enjoyed the benefits of the sauces, as all proceeds from their sales went to charity.

He was a real-life thrill seeker and never happier than when he was behind the wheel of a racing car.

Maybe he was a grumpy old man at home. Maybe he was mean to his kids and kicked his dog. But somehow I don’t think so.

I think Paul Newman had something we all wanted.

He had something for those who yearned to be good looking, to be famous, to be successful, to achieve an ambition, to enjoy a thrill, to be part of a family, and to help others.

If we could live life half as well as he appeared to, we will be very lucky people.