A response to antinomianism (idea that there is
no moral code except what arises from
spontaneous acts) and legalism (the idea that
everyone must follow a fixed moral code)
Midway between the two
Avoids the chaos of
antinomianism and the
'manual-checking' of
legalism
Based on the Bible (Fletcher
was originally a Christian but
became an atheist)
Because the Bible doesn't allow us
to know exactly what God is
thinking, we should try to follow
the rule of unconditional love -
'agape'
Love is the
only thing
which is
intrinsically
good
All love must be for others - you must be unselfish
We must
consider the
consequences
of our actions
Do what you believe to be most
loving in every individual situatoin
Principles
Four Working Principles
Positivism
Love comes first
Pragmatism
Looks to
practical,
reasonable
answers
Relativism
No objective values
except love
Personalism
People, not rules or
ideals, come first
Six Fundamental Principles
I use the WIELDS anagram
Love WILLS the good
Love is INTRINSICALLY good
Love is an END, not a means
LOVE is justice
Love is DEONTOLOGICAL (it
doesn't depend on the situation)
What is a loving action
depends on the
SITUATION
For and against Situation Ethics
For
A theory based on love is very attractive
It's a good theory for Christians
But you don't
have to be
Christian or
even religious
It's flexible - you can intervene, and also adapt
- so it's better than relativism or absolutism
You can make individual choices, not
fixed on rules or following a group
Against
It's very hard to predict
the consequences of
your actions
There is never a
definite answer
It might be said to go against
Chrisitian teachings, despite
being based on Christian love
Everything depends
on the choice-maker
who could be mistaken
Why should love
be described as
'Christian' love?
(Not really a flaw
in the theory but
might ut people
off following it)
Might not consider the
opinion and preference of
the people involved