Situation Ethics Flashcards
Situation Ethics
Developed by Joseph Fletcher, balancing between Legalism (strict rules) and Antinomianism (no rules).
Central Principle: Love (Agape) is the absolute principle guiding ethical decisions.
Action Evaluation: An action is good if it results in the most loving consequence in the situation.
Fletcher’s Four Working Principles
Pragmatism: Ethics must consider the situation.
Personalism: People are more important than rules.
Positivism: Agape is central and accepted on faith.
Relativism: Right or wrong depends on the loving outcome.
Six Fundamental Principles
Only love is intrinsically good; everything else has conditional value.
Love is the ruling norm of Christian decision-making.
Love and justice are the same; justice is love distributed fairly.
Love wills the good of all, even for those we dislike.
The end justifies the means; loving consequences justify actions.
Love decides in the moment; decisions are made in the context of the situation.
Conscience
Conscience: Not a thing, but the process of deciding what the loving thing to do is in each situation.
Strength of Situation Ethics: Designed for modern society (Fletcher and Robinson influenced by Bonhoeffer)
Fletcher and Robinson, influenced by Bonhoeffer, argue that humanity has “come of age,” becoming more mature, educated, and self-controlling.
Historical context: In ancient and medieval times, people needed rigid rules due to their lack of understanding and self-control. Today, society is more civilised, and giving people more autonomy will increase love without destabilising society.
William Barclay’s criticism: Situation ethics grants people too much freedom
He argues that Situation Ethics grants too much freedom. For freedom to be good, love must be perfect, and without enough love, freedom can lead to selfishness or cruelty.
Human imperfection: Barclay believes humanity has not “come of age” and still needs the protection of fixed laws.
Defence: Legalism has worse downsides
Although some may abuse the freedom granted by Situation Ethics, it is less harmful than the rigidity of legalism, which is outdated and inflexible.
Trust in humanity’s progress: Society has become more educated and civilised, making it logical for Fletcher to promote a morality that reflects greater freedom and autonomy.
Critiquing Situation Ethics: Power corrupts
Barclay’s argument is successful: People may not act lovingly when given freedom; instead, they may act selfishly or cruelly. This aligns with the idea that power corrupts, seen in psychology (e.g., Stanford prison experiment) and literature (e.g., Lord of the Flies).
Human nature and corruption: Power without laws can corrupt humans, as their decisions may be driven by selfish motives rather than love. This critique highlights the danger of granting too much freedom without external constraints.
Strength of Situation Ethics: Bible as guidance, not a rulebook
Liberal approach to the Bible: Fletcher argues that traditional legalistic approaches to the Bible face a dilemma because no one can follow the Bible literally, and interpreting it is subjective. For example, the command to “not resist an evil person” is difficult to apply literally.
Bible as guidance, not a rulebook: Fletcher believes the Bible provides paradigms or suggestions, not fixed rules. He rejects viewing the Bible as the perfect word of God and instead views it as offering ethical teachings, such as love, which guide moral decisions.
Focus on love: Fletcher focuses on love as the central ethical teaching of the Bible, especially in the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul. This aligns with the view of many liberal Christians.
Weakness of Situation Ethics: Limited view of Christian ethics
Limited view of Christian ethics: Critics argue that Fletcher’s approach oversimplifies Christian ethics by focusing only on love and neglecting other important Biblical teachings.
Dilution of Christian ethics: Fletcher’s focus on love makes Christian ethics seem indistinguishable from secular morality, reducing it to general well-wishing rather than a distinctively Christian approach.
Sola Scriptura criticism (W.L Craig)
Martin Luther’s concept of sola scriptura (the Bible alone is the source of moral authority) challenges Fletcher’s view. Sola scriptura proponents, like W.L. Craig, argue that God’s justice is just as important as His love and cannot be disregarded.
Strength of Situation Ethics: Aligns with the ethics of Jesus.
Alignment with Jesus’ approach: Fletcher’s situation ethics fits with how Jesus approached rules. Jesus overturned traditional laws (e.g., “eye for an eye”) and allowed breaking certain rules (e.g., the Sabbath) when necessary.
Love as the greatest commandment: Fletcher interprets Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself as the principle that takes priority over other rules. The greatest commandment (love) seems to override lesser rules, supporting Fletcher’s view that love should guide ethical decisions.
Richard Mouw’s criticism
Mouw argues that reducing Christian ethics to one command (love) contradicts Jesus’ other teachings, where he emphasizes following all commandments. Either Jesus is a moral authority, or he isn’t.
Pope Pius XII’s criticism
Pius XII argues that situation ethics undermines Christ’s frequent call to follow all commandments.
Jesus tells his disciples that if they love him they are to obey his commandments - that implies that there are commandments other than love.
Romans 3:8
Fletcher’s claim that the end justifies the means is challenged by the Bible, where this principle is condemned.
Legalism vs. Situationism
Mouw and Pius XII’s criticisms are flawed because they assume a legalistic approach is the only valid one. Jesus’ example suggests that a progressive, situation-based approach to ethics aligns more with his teachings.
Defence: Flexibility in Jesus’ ethics
Fletcher argues that Jesus himself took a flexible, situation-based approach to moral commands. Fletcher does not reject rules but challenges the rigid, legalistic interpretation of them.
Strength: The ethic is very clearly located in the words of Jesus
The ethic is very clearly located in the words of Jesus, who when asked to sum up the whole of the Jewish Law suggested that only two commands are needed: ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’.
Strength: Agape as a strong ethical foundation
Fletcher argues that agape, Christian selfless love, is a solid basis for ethics because it focuses on promoting loving outcomes rather than being driven by unreliable emotions.
Agape over general love: Unlike simple love, which can be subjective and influenced by emotions, agape (as recommended by Jesus) emphasises selfless love for others, promoting actions that prioritise the good of others.
Criticism: Subjectivity of agape (C. Hitchens)
Critics argue that the concept of agape still involves subjectivity. For example, someone might act in a way they believe is loving, but their perception of love may be skewed (e.g., the Auschwitz guard thinking they are loving their neighbor).
Loving yourself as a basis: Fletcher’s principle that we should love our neighbors as ourselves is challenged by C. Hitchens, who argues that the way a person loves themselves is still subjective and can vary greatly. If someone loves themselves in a harmful way, they may apply that same harm to others, which distorts the idea of agape.
Examples of Subjectivity
Nazi and Viking examples: In these cases, people may believe they are acting out of love, such as a Nazi viewing killing Jews as an act of love for their neighbor, or a Viking believing killing enemies is loving them in a way that aligns with their values. These interpretations challenge the universality of agape as defined by Fletcher.
Defence of subjectivity: Misunderstanding of agape
The criticism misunderstands agape. Agape is not about treating others how you would want to be treated; it’s about loving others in the same selfless way that you love yourself.
Nazis and Viking warriors were not acting from a place of true self-love; they were acting from distorted beliefs that did not reflect genuine agape.
Criticism: Does Situation ethics lead to antinomianism? (Argument from Natural Law and Catholic perspective)
Critics like Pope Pius XII argue that relativism leads to antinomianism (no moral laws). While recognising that ethics can vary depending on the situation, they argue that Aquinas’ Natural Law approach provides sufficient flexibility without abandoning moral absolutes.
Ethical absolutes: Catholics maintain certain ethical absolutes, such as the sanctity of life, which should not be relativized based on the situation. Fletcher’s principles of pragmatism and relativism are criticised for undermining societal stability and moral order.
An example is Mother Teresa’s argument against abortion, which she sees as destroying the sanctity of life and threatening peace.
Defence: Does Situation ethics lead to antinomianism? (Social order and stability)
The argument that relativism destabilizes society is challenged by examples from Northern Europe, where atheistic societies with flexible moral values still maintain stability and happiness. This suggests that strict ethical principles, like the sanctity of life, may not be necessary for social order, and thus Fletcher’s situationism does not lead to antinomianism.
