Is Fletchers SE distinctively Christian or does it mean nothing more than wanting the best for a person given the situation Flashcards
Introduction - What is Situation Ethics – where does it come from?
SE takes normative principles (virtues; NL) and generalizes so that they “make sense” when we experience moral dilemmas
Introduction - FOR
Teleological, relativist approach with a focus on individual autonomy and agape (NT
Introduction - AGAINST
Does not take into account the consequences of an action only focussed on the intention of the most loving thing = difficult to judge in a legal system
Introduction - CONCLUSION
Not helpful as although relativised to situation which is helpful in a contingent world = definition of “love” could be different for everyone = how do you condemn someone’s actions in the legal system
Section 1: theme
Idea of agape (NT) being between legalism and antinomianism
Section 1: AO1
(agape)
Legalism: is someone who follows the rules blindly and not questioning whether these rules are moral
Antinomianism: An individual can do whatever they want in a situation
SE = middle-ground “principled relativism” Recognises that normative rules do not transcend all situations. Whilst adultery/ murder are unethical may understand with equal clarity that they may not apply given the idiosyncratic circumstances in which we find ourselves. Instead should act within the rules and disregard if love is better served doing otherwise.
Section 2: AO2 FOR
(agape)
1) Problem with legalism – Nuremberg trials
most of the actions of the defendants were recognized as being legal under the judicial system of the Third Reich
Completely legalistic approach with no reason can have immoral outcomes and justify mass genocide
-By recognising that this is immoral and putting agape at the centre of the judicial system justice is best served. Would feel morally wrong to let them go free without consequence and not just wanting the best out of a bad situation
2) Bonhoeffer put love at the centre of his decision making when he decided to go against the biblical law “thou salt not kill” and planned to assassinate Hitler
If he succeeded thousands of lives could have been saved
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
(agape)
1) Bonhoeffer could have tried pacifist approach i.e. campaigning like MLK in gaining rights and still be following Gods law
-used own individual judgement of what love is, not really Christian as not in accordance with Gods law
2) Geisler: Whilst SE rightly establishes the person over things in moral decisions improperly est. the individual human autonomy ( and his situational decision of love) above the autonomy of God
- Doesn’t recognise God’s law is eternally and supremely perfect whilst are decisions are flawed, and whilst may want what’s best. Decision may be flawed/ not distinctively Christian
Section 2: AO1 CONCLUSION
(agape)
Although a strict adherence to the law can sometimes be immoral for certain situations i.e. Nuremberg trials, following blindly the principle of agape love is unhelpful. Could mean different things for each person and lead to immoral outcomes / puts too much emphasis on individual judgment at times when emotions could be running high.
Section 2: theme
Agape and Jesus
Section 2: AO1
Did Jesus encourage SE? Is it part of his teachings? Teachings of agape and “love thy neighbour” on the Sermon on the Mount (Mathew 22)
Section 2: AO2 FOR
(Jesus)
Mark 3:1 Jesus/Agape shown when Jesus healed a withered hand in the Jewish temple, despite it being Sabbath day and no one can work on the Sabbath
-SE by positing love and placing the individual first shows is in line with Jesus teachings as like Jesus sometimes the law needs to be disregarded
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
(Jesus)
1) Jesus never encouraged the violation of Gods law under any circumstances and taught his followers not to sin. Mathew 5:19
-Jesus was special and so diff circumstances to us
2) Barth/ Nieblur humans “fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and born into sin. Always tempted to do evil “For I do not know why I do bad when I do good” so won’t be able to discern the good and Gods eternal law
-Need strict adherence to the Bible to make moral decisions and can’t just rely on reason as too flawed to interpret God’s law for ourselves. Not helpful
Section 2: AO2 CONCLUSION
(Jesus)
Although Jesus may have sometimes broken the law his teachings reiterate over again how strict adherence to the Bible is needed. If we were truly to follow Gods law we would always put his teachings first above everything else for it to be distinctively Christian
Section 3: theme
Euthanasia - When suffering of a patient is so great that their life becomes unbearable, they should be able to end it as this is seen to be the most loving action.
Section 2: AO1
(Applied)
Fletcher’s working principles of relativism and personalism, means euthanasia is not always morally wrong and seems morally ethical as personalism posits how the person should be put at the heart of the decision
Section 2: AO2 FOR
(Applied)
Mill’s - ‘Over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’ - People regarded as having the right to autonomy over their own lives.
People would know what the most loving action is for themselves and should be able to have the right to decide
(God free will)
Section 2: AO2 AGAINST
(Applied)
Consequentialist ethical approach means that it is impossible to know the outcomes – ironically love could not be best served as the persons death could cause more harm than good for those still living
takes away the intrinsic value of life and could resort to more people turning to suicide when placed in stressful situations at school/work
-So much that contributes to a person’s quality of life and not all of it can be medically measured. An issue as complex as euthanasia cannot be based simply on whether love is best served. Needs strict adherence to Sanctity of life and Gods law rather than individual judgement
Section 2: AO2 CONCLUSION
(Applied)
Although SE does allow for human autonomy, which enables for the person to be at the heart of the descion rather than the law = seems morally correct. However, this approach takes away intrinsic value of life and could lead to immoral outcomes i.e. could be regretted later if followed law/ affected relatives. Selfish ethical approach
