Situation Ethics

Question 1

Who was situation ethics most famously championed by?

Answer 1

Situation ethics was most famously championed by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991).

Question 2

What did Joseph Fletcher believe?

Answer 2

He believed that we should follow the rules until we need to break them for reasons of love.

Question 3

What is situation ethics based on?

Answer 3

It is based on agape love (Christian unconditional love), and says that we should always do the most loving thing in any situation.

Question 4

What did Fletcher reject?

Answer 4

Fletcher rejected following rules regardless (legalism) and also the idea that we should not have any rules (antinomianism) and said that we need to find a balance between the two.

Question 5

Why did Fletcher view legalism as negative?

Answer 5

Some ethical theories suggest legalistic rules that mustn’t be broken, This is wrong as it makes rules more important than people, and doesn’t allow exceptions.

Question 6

Why did Fletcher view antinomianism as negative?

Answer 6

There are antinomians who reject rules entirely. This is wrong as it leads to complete chaos with no laws at all, and no way of choosing between two courses of action.

Question 7

What is situation ethics approach to rules?

Answer 7

The situationist has respect for the laws, may often follow the laws and be informed by tradition. However, he is free to make the right choice according to the situation.

Question 8

What are the four working principles of situation ethics?

Answer 8

1. Pragmatism (it has to work in daily life - it must be practical)
2. Relativism (there should be no fixed rules)
3. Positivism (it must put faith before reasoning – “I am a Christian, so what should I do?”)
4. Personalism (people should be at the centre of the theory)

Question 9

What does pragmatism mean?

Answer 9

For a course of action to be right, it has to be practical. It must work.

Question 10

How does pragmatism come into account in the case of Jodie and Mary?

Answer 10

For example, in the case of Jodie and Mary, conjoined twins, the Catholic church wanted to let both of the girls die. To kill one, saving the other, would be an evil or bad act, they said. Fletcher would have disagreed. Letting both girls die is not pragmatic. It would be of more use, more practical, to save one girl at the expense of the other. Whilst this is not consequentialist - it is love that is good, not an outcome

Question 11

What does relativism mean?

Answer 11

This means that rules (absolutes) don’t always apply, they depend on the situation. Absolutes like ‘Do not steal’ become relative to love – if love demands stealing food for the hungry, you steal. However, it doesn’t mean ‘anything goes’. He doesn’t take a relative ‘Do whatever the situation demands’ and make it into an absolute “‘It relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative’”

Question 12

What does positivism mean?

Answer 12

Kant and Natural Law are based on reason – reason can uncover the right course of action. Situation Ethics disagrees, You have to start with a positive choice – you need to want to do good. There is no rational answer to the question “Why should I love?”

Question 13

What does personalism mean?

Answer 13

Situation Ethics puts people first. People are more important than rules. “Man was not made for the Sabbath”

Question 14

What are the six fundamental principles?

Answer 14

Love only is always good-‘Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all’
Love is the only norm (rule)- ‘The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else’
Love and justice are the same -“Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.”
Love is not liking- “Love wills the neighbor’s good whether we like him or not.”
Love justifies the means- “Only the end justifies the means; nothing else,”
Love decides there and then

Question 15

What is meant by love only is always good?

Answer 15

Love is intrinsically valuable, it has inherent worth. Love is good. Nothing else has intrinsic value but ‘it gains or acquires its value only because it happens to help persons (thus being good) or to hurt persons (thus being bad)’. A lie is not intrinsically wrong. It is wrong if it harms people, but may sometimes be right. ‘For the Situationist, what makes the lie right is its loving purpose; [they are] not hypnotised by some abstract law, ‘Thou shalt not lie’.

Question 16

What is meant by love is the only norm?

Answer 16

Love replaces the law. The law should only be obeyed in the interests of love, not for the law’s sake! Fletcher rejects Natural Law. He says ‘There are no [natural] universal laws held by all men everywhere at all times.’ Jesus summarized the entire law by saying ‘Love God’ and ‘Love your neighbour’. Love is the only law. The problem with this is that it allows the individual to do anything in the name of love – there are no rules to say that someone has done the wrong thing.

Question 17

What is meant by love and justice are the same?

Answer 17

There can be no love without justice. Consider any injustice – a child starving, a man arrested without charge etc. These are examples of a lack of love. If love was properly shared out, there would be no injustice.

Question 18

What is meant by love is not liking?

Answer 18

Love is discerning and critical, not sentimental. Martin Luther King described Agape love as a ‘creative, redemptive goodwill to all men’. He said it would be nonsense to ask people to like their violent oppressors. Christian love is a non-selfish love of all people.

Question 19

What is meant by love justified the means?

Answer 19

When someone said to Fletcher ‘The end doesn’t justify the means’, he said ‘Then what on earth does?’. If an action causes harm, it is wrong. If good comes of it, it is right. Fletcher says you can’t claim to be right by following a rule (like ‘Do not lie’) knowing it will cause great harm. Only the end or outcome can justify your action.

Question 20

What is meant by love decides there and then?

Answer 20

There are no rules about what should or shouldn’t be done – in each situation, you decide there and then what the most loving thing to do is.

Question 21

What are the advantages of situation ethics?

Answer 21

The key advantage is that it uses rules to provide a framework but allows people to break rules to reflect life’s complexities.
Situation Ethics also seems more in line with the example of Christ - Jesus seemed to put people before principles

Question 22

What are the disadvantages of situation ethics?

Answer 22

It does not provide a clear definition of what love actually is.
Some might say it is too subjective – because decisions have to be made from within the situation. Humans do not have a bird’s eye view on a situation so have difficulty in seeing what the consequences will be.
Agape love is too much to aspire to and may be polluted by a selfish human tendency.
It is human nature to love family more than strangers.
We do not know whose rules to follow.

Question 23

What are the criticisms of situation ethics?

Answer 23

it allows terrible things to happen in an attempt to do the right thing. Many Christians are not happy to let go of universal human rights. They feel that certain actions simply are wrong, and that our priority should be doing God’s will not just making people happy. Situation Ethics makes morality subjective. outcomes or consequences are unpredictable, incalculable and immeasurable. It just isn’t possible to work out which action will have the best consequences. Too individualistic.

Question 24

Why is situation ethics criticized for being too individualistic?

Answer 24

The individual has too much control or influence, and people tend to be selfish. If I am given complete freedom with no rules governing me, I am likely to misuse this power. Agape - an unselfish, unconditional love - is a great ideal but is rarely achieved in practice. People need rules to live by, and can’t really be trusted to do the right thing without those rules.

Question 25

What is similar in the way that Peter Singer and Fletcher approach ethics?

Answer 25

Situation Ethics appears to be very similar to Act Utilitarianism. Fletcher talks of ‘interests’, a word with which many modern utilitarians such as Peter Singer would be comfortable. He wrote about the need to change the ‘sanctity of life’ ethic, which has recently been echoed by Peter Singer. The sorts of conclusions that Fletcher himself reached - about using organs from brain-stem dead infants, about when we become fully human and how this is a matter of degree - are indistinguishable from Singer’s own comments.

Question 26

What is different in the way that Peter Singer and Fletcher come to conclusions about ethics?

Answer 26

Although they may reach the same destination, Fletcher and Singer take slightly different routes. Both are teleological, and are interested in outcomes. However, Fletcher was at pains to point out that situation ethics relativises the absolute (getting rid of absolute rules) and does not absolutise the relative (it doesn’t make an absolute rule that “You must always do the most loving thing”). There is no principle of utility.

Question 27

What is different between situation ethics and utilitarianism?

Answer 27

Situation ethics requires a positivist step of faith. Utilitarianism is justified by the empirical observation that humans desire pleasure and avoid pain, and therefore we should maximise pleasure for all people and minimise pain. There is no justification for ‘love’ - if anyone asks ‘ Why should I love?’ there can be no answer.

Question 28

What is similar in situation ethics and utilitarianism?

Answer 28

Situation ethics says all actions must be pragmatic - they need to work. This is very close to the principle of utility. Ultimately, you answer ethical dilemmas by working out what the effects will be and by maximising the meeting of people’s interests, as this is the most loving thing to do.