situation ethics Flashcards
who created situation ethics and when
Joseph Fletcher in the 1960’s
what is legalism
the view that people require fixed rules to follow
what is antinomianism
the view that there are no rules or laws to follow at all
what is situation ethics
takes the situation into account, gives people clear guidance and avoids moral chaos = middle ground. it does this by claiming that love is the one single absolute principle which should be applied to all situations. the action that is good is the one which has the most loving consequence in the situation you are in.
what is agape and where did it come from
christian love. christianity is drawn from Jesus saying that the greatest commandment was to love your neighbour as yourself.
when are the 4 working principles applied
when guiding the use of agape in moral situations
what are the 4 working principles
pragmatism, relativism, positivism, personalism
what is pragmatism
an action must be calibrated to the reality of the situation
what is relativism
relativising the absolute. this means that absolutes like ‘do not kill’ become relative to love. if it has a loving outcome to kill, euthanasia, then the absolute is false relative to love. it is always relative to love which means that only moral claims which are valid when relative to love will be justified for fletcher
what is positivism
natural law and kantian ethics are based on reason but fletcher thought ethics had to begin with faith in love because fletcher thought no rational answer can be given for why someone should love as it is a matter of faith in Jesus’ command to love your neighbour as yourself.
what is personalism
SE puts people above the rules. JC said ‘the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath’. fletcher claims that this shows that Jesus knew the rules could be broken if it was for the good of humanity to do so.
what are the six fundamental principles
axioms which follow from agape being at the centre of ethics
name the 6 principles
only love is intrinsically good, the ruling norm of christian decision is love nothing else, love and justice are the same for justice is love distributed, love wills the neighbours good whether we like him or not, only the ends justifies the means, love decides there and then
why is situation ethics designed for a modern society
fletcher and Robinson argue that humanity has ‘come of age’. in medieval and ancient times, people in general were less educated and less self controlling. this meant that they needed fixed rigid clear rules to follow, because they couldn’t be trusted to understand and act on the nuances and complexities in how a rule can be bent if situation called for it. however, now people are more civilised to the point that granting them more autonomy will increase love without risking the stability of society.
what was William Barclays critique
he argues that situation ethics gives moral agents a dangerous amount of freedom. For freedom to be good, love has to be perfect. if there is no o not enough love then ‘freedom can become selfish and even cruelty’. if everyone was a saint then situation ethics would be perfect. Barclay argues mankind has not yet come of age and so ‘still needs the crutch and protection of law’.
situation ethics may be seen as a helpful way of making moral decisions because
- a key attraction of situation ethics, as with all relativistic theories, is its flexibility. it is able to deal with exceptional situations, hence avoiding the legalism that some versions of natural law may lead us to. it enable people to keep the spirit of the law without being obsessed with the letter of the law.
- situation ethics enables a decision to be made in each situation. absolutist theories can struggle with difficult situations where there are two conflicting duties. se enables us to choose lesser of the two evils
- situation ethics is person centred and as such seems closer to the teachings of Jesus who consistently put people above rules
- love as a principle is not hard to object to. if we love others, we will want the best for them. this seems more compassionate than some versions of utilitarianism, which just focus on pleasure and pain.
situation ethics may be seen as unhelpful ways of making moral decisions because
- faces the difficulty that, it is vague; the suggestion that we should do the most loving thing is not specifically clear
- there are no moral boundaries. everything could be permitted if the situation was extreme enough. this does not seem right. some things - for example rape or genocide - are just inherently wrong and no circumstances could ever make them right.
- as a teleological theory requires that we are able to make predictions about the outcomes our actions will produce. yet we do not always know whether what we have done will produce the most loving outcome
- it may be difficult to decide where a situation begins and ends. my decision to take a life to save others may be a good short-term solution, but may set in motion a chain of events and revenge that lasts for generations. how much am I responsible at the moment of decision?
- some critics have objected that situation ethics effectively becomes a christian version of utilitarianism that uses agape rather than pleasure and pain. fletcher is aware of this point but does not necessarily see this as an objection to his theory
what is the acceptable abortion case study fletcher uses
in 1962 a girl with schizophrenia was raped in a psychiatric hospital by fellow patient. charged the hospital with negligence and asked for an abortion. however was illegal in America so hospital refused. fletcher argues that this was the wrong decision and that a situationist approach would almost certainly support abortion in this case.
what is the Truman dilemma case study
whether or not to use the atomic bombs on Japan, Japanese would keep fighting forever leading to a loss of millions of lives, others felt just demonstration on a nearby island.
ethical judgements should be based on agape because
- for a religious thinker, agape is an excellent principle and, according to Jesus, sums up the most important commandments
- the principle of agape is useful in helping us know when to accept the general rules (Sophia) and when you break them. it is flexible to different situations.
- agape is a relativist principle but, unlike the pleasure principle of utilitarianism, it does not seem as easy to manipulate. for instance it is harder to argue that murder or racism can be a loving act even though in extreme circumstances this may bring pleasure to an evil majority.
ethical judgements should not be based on agape because
- the concept of love represented by agape can be interpreted in various ways. it may for some conjure up charity and compassion, but for others represent a dispassionate wanting of good for others. as such, both the concept and the application to individual situations can produce different results.
- one difficulty with agape and the idea of situation ethics in general is that it seems set up to deal with exceptional or difficult cases. but lawyers and philosophers often argue that hard cases make bad laws. agape may be the right approach at times, but most cases require us to follow the conventional rules.
- there may be better principles upon which to base ethics. these may involve pleasure, duty or purpose according to other ethical theories in the specification. additionally a religious believer may argue that God directly reveals commands and that a stress on agape may lead a believer away from the revelation.
what did Augustine suggest about christian love
suggested that people should ‘love God and do what they will’, as if they truly love God they will be guided to do the right thing.
what was aquinas’ view
his double effect and the 20th century theory of proportionality might bring more flexibility in christian ethical thinking than is generally realised.
what did archbishop William temple in the early 20th century
argued that love is the main duty that christians have, there are also ideas of love in the ethics of Bonhoeffer, whose faith led him to plot against hitler.
