situation ethics is a
relativistic, consequentialist
and teleological theory
relativistic - this means there are no
universal moral norms or rules and that
each situation has to be looked at
independently because each situation is
different.
consequential - this
means that moral
jusdgements should be
based on the outcome
or the consequence of
an action
teleological means that it is
concerned with the end
purpose or goal of an action in
this case the goal should always
be self sacrificing love.
in 1966 Joseph fletcher published his
book situation ethics: the new
morality. His theory was based on one
guiding principle- agape. This is the
chirstian principle of selfless and
unconditional love. it is the word used
to describe gods love for humanity and
the love that christians should show
towards god and other people.
key figures
joseph fletcher
was an american professor who
formalised the theory known as
situation ehtics in his book. he was
a leasing academic involved in
topics ranging from abortion to
cloniing. he was ordained as a
priest, but later identified himslef
as an athiest. he stated that we
should always use the principle of
love or agape and apply it to each
unique situation.
why did fletcher reject other
types of ethical approaches?
fletcher claimed that most
moral theories adopted either
an antinomian or a
legalistic approach to
ethics. he argued that neither
of these approaches works.
antinomiansim literally means
against law. a situationist attitude
based on the idea that people are
under no obligation to obey the laws
of ethics or morality as presented by
religious authorities. the situation
will provide the solution which can
be found through intuition/ use of a
persons conscience. fletcher
rejected this as he said with no
guiding principles there could well
be moral chaos
legalism and why fletcher
rejected it? leagalism is an
attitude that exalts laws above
all other considerations, e.g.
natural law. Fletcher rejected
this approach as he said it
gave people no choice but to
follow
Fletcher referred to situation
ethics as the middle way
between both these
approaches. it has no rules,
but only one guiding principle
the application of agape- the
love which Jesus
commanded in the new
testament.
agape and the four working
and six fundamental
principles of situation ethics
the four working principles
pragmatism- the
proposed cource of
action must work and
be motivated by love.
positivism- agape provides
justification not proof for an
ethical decision. people must
accept that acting in the most
loving way is the right thing to
do.
personalism- the desire to
put poeple, not laws, first.
the christian is committed
to love people, not rules or
laws
relativism - the right response
will depend upon each unique
situation. people must respond
with agape love to each
situation. A supporter of
situation ethics avoids words
like never or always as they
believe that curcumstances can
always throw up exceptions.
six fundamental
principles of
situation ethics
'the ruling norm of any
christian decision is love,
nothing else- as st Paul
said in 1 corinthians 13,
love is the basis of
christian decision making.
'only one thing is intrinsically good;
love:nothing else at all'- nothing is good
in and of itself except for love.
intrinsicaly means 'belonging naturally to
or essential to.'
'love and justice are the
same, for justice is love
distributed, nothing
else' justice is love at
work in the community.
''love wills the good of
others, regardless of
feelings.' people should
show love to all, even
their enemies, as agape
is selfless love.
'love's decisions are made
situationally, not prescriptively.'
people have autonomy- the
freedom to make their own
decisions, but they must use
this freedom responsibily and
apply love to each situation.
'a living end justifies the
means.' one must achieve
a loving end and one can
perfrorm any action in
order to achieve this.
an example of the application of
situation ethics
a follower of situation ethics might
assess the situation as follows:
working principle: pragmatism- it is
practically possible to separate the
twins and there is likely to be a
loving outcome because when the
operation has ended at least one of
them will have a greater chance of
survivial.
working principle: relativism-
the course of action taken is
dependent on the situation as
conjoined twins are not always
joined at the head. each case
would be assessed differently. a
situationist would not say you
should always or never separate
conjoined twins.
working principle:
personalism- the
medical teams desire
to save the children is
person- centered.
Fletcher would have
argued that they
should performm this
operation even if it
breaks the law as it is
the most loving thing
to do.
fundamental
principle: love and
justice are the same,
for justice is love
distrubuted, nothing
else- by attempting to
save both the
children, even if one
child dies, they have
acted out of love and
therefore fairly
ensured justice has
been served.
fundamental principle: a
loving end justifies the
means- by achieving a
loving outcome and saving
at least one of he children
then the act of performing
the operation and risking
both their lives will have
been justifiable.
fundamental principle: love wills the good of
others, regardless of feelings- even if the father of
the children is the person who murdered the
surgeons mother, the surgeon should still act in a
loving way towards the children and their father. as
fletcher said we should show love to all, even our
enemies. christian love is unconditional. love wills
the good of others.
biblical evidence used to support situation ethics
john 15:13 in which jesus
states, 'no one has greater
love than this, to lay down
one's life for one's friends.'
this appears to support the
concept of agape love.
Bible quote: 'for the
whole law is fulfilled in
one word, you shall love
your neighbour as
yourself.' this appears to
support one of fletchers
six fundamental
principles ' the ruling
norm of any chirstian
decision is love, nothing
else.'
mark 2:27 'the sabath
was made for man, not
man for the sabbath.; -
some claim that jesus
adopted a relaticistic
approach to ethics,' for
example he attacked
the pharisees'
insistence on following
the torah or jewish law.
this links to fletchers
four wokring
principles- relaticism
john 5:1-16 jesus
putpoeple first, he broke
sabbath laws to heal on
the sabbath- he healed
the paralysed man on the
sabbath. this links to
fletchers four working
principles- personalism
matthew 22:37-39 'love your
neighbour as yourself.' -jesus stated
that love is the highest principle above
the law. one of fletchers six
fundamental principles states ;the
ruling norm of any chirstian decision
is love, nothing else.'
luke 6:27 jesus stated
that you should 'love your
enemies, do good to thos
who hate you.' one of
fletchers six fundamental
principles states 'loe
wills the good of others
regardless of others.'
to what extent is situation
ethics compatible with the
traditional teachin of one
major world religon?
situation ethics IS compatible with
christian ethics
it is modelled on the
teachings of jesus
e.g.'love one another
as i have loved you.'
(john 13v34-5)
the idea of putting people first
(personalism) is in keeping with
the actions of Jesus as recorded
in the bible. Jesus put people first,
he broke Sabbath laws to heal on
the Sabbath- he healed the
paralysed man on sabbath
according to john chapter 5.
one of the six findamental
principles of situation ethics is only
the principle of love provides a
reasonable base by which to make
judgements of right and wrong.'
Jesus said and st Paul taught love as
the highest principle above the law.
; for the whole law is fulfilled in one
word, love your neighbour as
yourself.'( st paul, galatains 5v14)
another of the six fundamental
principles is 'love wills the good
of others, regardless of feelings.'
jesus used the parable of the
hood samaritan to emphasise
his point. (luke 10)
some chirstians argue that
the fundamental principle
'love's decisions are made
situationally, not
prescriptively' reflects the
christian belied in free-will/
autonomy.
some claim that jesus
adopted a relativistic
approach to ethics for
example he attacked the
pharisees' insitence on
foollowing the torah, or
jewish law - 'the sabbath
was made for man, not
man for the sababth.'
(mark 2v27)
situation ethics IS NOT
compatible with christian
ethics
situation ethics rejects
aboslute moral laws like
the ten commandments,
but st Paul said that love
is fulfulling of the
law.(romans 13v10)
situation ethics fails
to consider relgious
tradition or the
teachings of church
leaders. for example,
the bible states that
sec should only take
place iwthin marriage,
but this theory allows
sex before marriage if
it is based on agape.
situation ethics fails to consider
religious tradition or the
teachings of church leaders. for
example, the bible states that sex
should only take place within
marriage, but this theory allows
sex before marriage if it is based
on agape.
St Paul stated that 'love is
not the only desirable
quality'.... the fruit of
spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience' (Galatains
5v22-23)
religious leaders, such as the pope ,
have rejected the relativistic
approach of situation ethics. he said
in april 2005, 'we are moving towards
a dictatorship of relativism which
does not recognise anything as for
certain and which has a sits highest
goal one's own ego and ones own
desires.... being an 'adult' means
having faith which does not follow
the wwaves fo today's fashions or
the latest novelties.'
situation ethics
removes god as the
source of ultimate
authority in the
universe and
substitutes an in his
place.
what are the strengths and
weaknesses with situation
ethics?
strengths
situation ethics as a relativistic theory
is flexible and practical. it takes into
account the situation a person is faced
with and can help make decisions in a
situation where, from a legalistic view
all options are wrong. for example, to
lie in a particular situation inorder to
save a life.
situation ethics allows people
the individual freedom to make
decisions for themselves. which
many people nowawdays prefer
to the prescriptive/ legalistic
approach. as Mel thompson
states in his book an introfution to
philosophy and ethics. it allows
individuals to makeup their own
minds about what is rights or
wrong in any particular situation.
agape involves selfless love-
putting others first which should
ensure fairness and justice. as
sarah k. tyler and gordon reid
state in their book advanced
religious studies, 'love seeks the
well-being of others, even if the
course of action is not one of
preference.'
due to fletchers use of the
fundamental principle 'a loving end
justifies the mean', people would
have to consider the likely
consequences of their actions
before they take them and it is only
the consequences that have a real
effect on human well-being.
the idea of putting people before rules
'personalism' appears to be in keeping
with the actions of jesus as recorded in
the bible- healling the paralysed man,
john chapter 5.
weaknesses
many people argue we need rules to
avoid issues such as moral chaos as
J.Mack states in a dictionary of Christian
ethics. 'it seems to be assumed that
somehow one presumes what is right in
a situation from the situation itself.
Even if some people have this
remarkable gift or insight, there are
stages one the way to moral maturity,
and a great many people need the
guidance of rules and generalisations
which the community has built up from
experience.'
situation ethics gives so much freedom to
the individual it is difficult to decide what
action to take. as Bowie states in his book
ethical studies, how can individuals safely
decide what is the most loving action?' this
is because love is a subjective concept.
agape is too subjective a concept to be
used practically, as humans are prone to
making mistakes or being influenced by
selfishness rather that love as Edwin
Williams wrote in an article entitles
situation ethic: the new morality, 'love
led to itself can easily turn into the licence
of permissiveness.' in others words
people could claim to perform any act
out of love when really they are doing as
they please.
people cannot accurately predict
the consequences of their actions.
as Peter Vardy and Paul Grasch
state in the puzzle of ethics ' it is
not easy to determine the
consequences of actions and this
the situationist need to do. 'a
person might think it loving in the
short term to allow their pregnant
teenage daughter to have an
abortion; however, you cannot be
sure that in the long term this will
not cause her great distress and
ultimately lead to unloving
consequences.