Fletcher’s situational ethics:
Intro
Situation ethics was created by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s. His approach embodies
liberal Christianity in many ways. He rejected the traditional approach to Christian ethics
of strict adherence to moral laws. Instead he attempted a reduction of Christian ethics to
love.
Legalism/ situation ethics/ antinomianism
Legalism is the view that people require fixed rules to follow, so doesn’t take the whole
situation into account.
Antinomianism is the view that there are no rules or laws to follow at all, so takes the
situation into account, which can lead to moral chaos.
Fletcher claimed that his situation ethics was a middle ground which avoids the problems
of each extreme while retaining the benefit of each. It situation into account, give people
clear guidance and avoids moral chaos, by claiming that love is the one absolute
principle which should be applied to all situations.
Agape
The importance of Agape in Christianity is drawn from Jesus saying that the ‘greatest
commandment’ is to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’, as seen in the 10 commandments
where murder is forbidden.
However, Fletcher gives the example of a family hiding from bandits, having to kill their
baby, as it’s the most loving thing because the situation risked all their lives, thus
abortion can be justified.
The four working principles
(involved in application of guiding principle of agape to moral situations)
Pragmatism- good is ‘what works’ + maximises love. Quotes William James;
pragmatists “turn his back upon fixed principles” and “turns towards concrete
ness and adequacy”
Relativism- “relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutise the relative” (Avoid
‘never’/ ‘perfect’ unless ‘agapeic’). 10th commandment “do not lie” becomes
relative to situation, as only love is constant and everything else is a variable
Positivism- irrational as no rational answer can be given for why someone should
love (matter of faith in Jesus’ command to “love your neighbour as yourself”)
Personalism- Puts people above rules. As Jesus said “The Sabbath was made for
man, not man for the Sabbath”.
The six fundamental principles
(follow from agape being at centre of ethics)
-Only love is intrinsically good. Everything but love has conditional value
-love is the only norm. We should “drop the leftist life of law and accept only the love
of law”
-Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing
else. Christian ethics forms coalition with utilitarianism- uses pleasure calculus to
calculate pleasure in action
-love is not liking. Love is conative (brought by human will), so can be commanded
whilst emotions can’t.
-Love justifies the means; nothing else. Consequentialism explains if consequence
of an action is the most loving possible then it is good, regardless of action. The end of
maximising agape justifies the means we use to produce it.
-Love decides there and then. When faced with a moral choice, we must decide there
and then in that situation what the right thing to do is.
Fletcher’s views on conscience
(conscience was what enabled you to figure out the requirements of agape in your
situation. Not something you have but something you do)
1. It is innate (built in faculty)
2. Guided by the Holy Spirit
3. Internalised values of society
4. Conscience is reason making moral judgements
“Abortion can always be justified by situation ethics” (15 marks)
(Para 1) Grounded in life of Jesus. Fits with approach to ethics taken by Jesus, as he
overturned rules (like that of Moses’ eye for an eye & life for a life), saying the greatest
commandment was to ‘love your neighbours as yourself’. Therefor, abortion can be
justified as it fulfils Fletcher’s fourth presupposition of personalism, as it puts the
happiness of the people over rules/things. If the mother’s life is at risk, aborting the baby
is justified, as love is the ruling norm, and treats the babies life as Jesus would have
treated it.
BUT (counter)
-Reduces Jesus’ commands to one rule.
Jesus made other commands too, so unreasonable to limit to one, argued by Richard
meow. Although abortion may be justified through being the most loving action, it
doesn’t fulfill other commands such as to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ as its actively
destroying a life made in ‘God’s image’.
(Para 2)Amount of freedom is dangerous argued by William Barclay. For freedom to
be good, love has to be perfect. If there is no or not enough love then ‘freedom can
become selfishness and even cruelty’. Mankind ‘still needs the crutch and protection of
law’. If granted the freedom (and thus power) to do what they want, they won’t choose
the loving thing they will choose the selfish or even the cruel thing. Also echoes
argument of original sin. Therefor, it suggests abortion is unjustified, as it is the
result of just having too much freedom, and the love isn’t perfect, as ultimately a life is
taken.
BUT (counter)
Barclay’s argument fails as legalism has worse downsides, as it’s incredibly inflexible.
Although, some would abuse the autonomy situation ethics grants them, some
situations call for abortion for the maximum amount of love to be fulfilled: a Jewish
doctor aborted 3000 women brought to concentration camps, to save the 3000 lives
which would otherwise be taken. This is why fletcher argued using a middle ground
between legalism and antinomialism, as although rules should be set aside only when
love is the guiding principle, to make them more constant.
(Para 3) Designed for modern society. Compatible with science/ technology as it’s
flexible with rules unlike legalistic ethics which bans some scientific beliefs about nature
of god. Therefore, it justifies abortion, as science can be used to uncover disabilities/
illnesses a child may be born to suffer (some of which can not be cured by treatment).
Love is seen to decide there and then, to make situational decisions: it is not loving to
have a child knowing it will grow up suffering.
BUT
Puts emphasis on motivation but it’s a doubtful assumption to make. Babies can
be screened for genetic disorders/ disabilities, which can be the reason behind an
abortion: to prevent the baby from living a ‘harder’ life. However, although the
motivation can be seen as loving, it is not just as it assesses the value of a life from a
disability. In fletchers six prepositions, justice and love are the same, as justice is loved
distributed.
We came to the conclusion that situation ethics does not justify abortion, as it
fundamentally lacks in love which is the guiding principle of situation ethics. ‘The means’
can not be justifies, no matter the situation as taking a life actively goes against god’s
teaching of ‘lov’ing ’thy neighbour’, as it destroys a life made ‘in gods image’ (imago
dei).
(Yuki, Rahul and Berty’s attempt to unravel situation ethics).
