PRAGMATISM: The situationist must ask ‘what is the
most loving thing to do?’, but this action must be
practical, and it must work. The decision that is
made should work towards the end, which is love.
The right thing to do is the thing which works to
produce the most love, rather than the law.
An example of the practical application of situation
ethics is an example of a group in hiding that will be
discovered as a baby is crying. If the mother choses
to smother her baby, the rest of the group will be
saved, making this decision practical as well as the
most loving.
RELATIVISM: There are no fixed rules that
must be obeyed. However, all decisions
must be relative to agape, Fletcher’s idea
of Christian Love. Situation Ethics
‘relativizes the absolute, it does not
absolutize the relative’ [Fletcher], and
therefore, each situation requires the
decision maker to make a different
decision.
For example, if a
rich man stole, it
would be a crime,
but if a poor mother
stole to save her
dying children, it
would not be such a
crime as she was
acting out of love.
POSITIVISM: This is the situational presumption that
Christians freely choose to believe that God is love. The
situationist must then choose to act in a way that is
reasonable with this faith statement. Christian love is
what comes first in the basis of decision making.
An example of this is CAFOD. The Christian
church says that Christians should give
their money to this charity rather than
straight to a person, so CAFOD may be able
to build a hospital or school. By doing this,
Christians choose their faith
PERSONALISM: This is the proposition which
puts the people first, which makes it different
from legalism which puts the law first. People
are of value because they are made in the
image of God. The effect on the person makes
the action ‘good’ rather than something laid
down by the law.
INTRO: Situation Ethics is an ethical theory
devised by Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher
believed Situation Ethics to be the middle
way between legalism and antinomianism
[no rules]. There is only one rule in
Situation Ethics; the most loving action is
the right action. Fletcher created six
fundamental principles and four
presumptions, or propositions, to guide the
Situation Ethicist in their moral decision
making.
CONSCIENCE: Fletcher’s understanding of conscience is different from
traditional views, he sees it as a ‘function, not as a faculty’. He is not so
much interested in what it ‘is’ as what it ‘does’. He rejects that it is
intuition, guidance by the Holy Spirit or introjection. Fletcher believes
that the way that conscience functions is by looking forward towards
moral problems to solve, not looking back and reviewing in guilt or
shame. That is to say, conscience is applied before the moral decision is
made, rather than evaluating afterwards.
Actions are not intrinsically good or
bad, but extrinsically right or wrong,
judged on whether they produce the
most love or not.
AGAPEISTIC LOVE =
Christian love
6 Fundamental principles
Love only is always good
The ruling norm of
Christian decision
making is love
Love and justice are the same
for love is justice distributed
Love wills the neighbour's good,
whether we like him or not
Only love justifies the
means, nothing else
Love's decisions are made
situationally no prescriptively
Middle way between
legalism [completely ruled] and
antinomianism [no rules]
FLETCHER!
The action which
produces the
most love is right
STRENGTHS
Flexible
Gives personal freedom
Doesn't reject laws but sees them as useful tools
If we follow how love guides us how can we be wrong?
Alternative Christian Ethic
Easy to understand
WEAKNESSESS
There's a reason laws exist
Rejected by Christian church
Induvidualistic
Could justify morally wrong things
"It is as difficult to define love
as it is to catch a greased pig"
Actions (eg adultery) do not
become good because the
are done out of love
Really hard to apply
Examples Fletcher
gives are too extreme
for real life
COMPATIBILITY WITH
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
COMPATIBLE
Agape= Christian love
and it is therefore
compatible with any
Christian approach that
has love at the centre
Christianity also realises that
absolutes are not absolutes with
change in views on women, war and
death penalty
INCOMPATIBLE
Banned from RC
acadamies
Clear absolute laws in the bible
IMPRACTICAL
Too complex to be
of any practical use
Confusion over what is
good and what is right
Issues remain relative
Different ideas on
what is the most
loving thing to do
Application to IVF
In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a process by which an
egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro
("in glass"). The process involves monitoring and
stimulating a woman's ovulatory process, removing
eggs from the woman's ovaries and letting sperm
fertilise them in a liquid in a laboratory. The
fertilised egg is cultured for 2–6 days in a growth
medium and is then implanted in the woman's
uterus, with the intention of establishing a
successful pregnancy.
The couple must be pragmatic, only 32% of
women under 35 who go through with IVF get a
child at the end of it. Is it worth the 68% chance
of failure?
1. makes us consider whether a couple seeking IVF is doing it out of
unconditional love for each other, or whether they are being selfish.
2. suggests that Christians should not only love others, but to some extent
sacrifice themselves for others; what will happen to the spare embryos that
are not used?
3. that love needs to support the whole community. How much love will
come out of IVF? Would more love be created if another couple had IVF?
Would it be more just if only those who had their reproductive organs
damaged by surgery or dangerous working conditions could have IVF? These
are all questions that the Situation Ethicist needs to consider.
4. means that it may be more loving to find another solution, such as
adoption.
5. but does this mean ignoring the cost involved, other people’s concerns
and feelings, as well as religious teachings?
6. takes us back to the beginning; Situation Ethics allows a couple to have a
child via IVF for loving and compassionate reasons but it ultimately depends
on the best interests of the couple involved.