Situation ethics
Cards (44)
- C. S. Lewis-says love can be defined in 4 ways in his 1960 book 'The Four Loves':-->storge-a fondness often based on family connection-->philia-a close friendship or companionship-->eros-a sexual love-->agape-charity, unconditional love, the greatest of all the 'loves'
- agape love-not merely an emotion, but involves doing what is best for the other person-specifically Christian love-it is unconditional, and always your aim in a situation-altruistic, as it always puts the other person's well being first-inspired by 'God is love' in 1 John 4:8-the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 is an example of agape-not within humanity's natural abilities to practise agape, but with God it is possible to love God and our neighbours
- situational-means no moral act is necessarily wrong-"the morality of an action depends on the situation" (Joseph Fletcher 1963)-says that if the circumstance dictates a path, then anything can be justified
- situation ethics-more teleological-situational-consequentialist-intention is important-relative-results driven-other critics argue that, in theory, situation ethics operates according to an absolute norm or standard (always act agapeistically)
- Joseph Fletcher-American professor who founded the theory of situation ethics in the 1960s-pioneer in bioethics and was involved in areas of abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and cloning-his work 'Situation Ethics: The New Morality' was published in 1966
- St Louis taxi driver's influence on Fletcher-"there are times when a man has to push his principles aside and do the right thing"-Fletcher met a taxi driver who told him that his family had always voted republican in the US elections. However, he realised in the upcoming election it was the democrats who would bring the change the country needed, so he would put his principles to one side, and do the right thing by voting democrat-Fletcher dedicated his book to the driver
- William Temple's influence on Fletcher-was the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1942-1944-"there is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' How to do this is another question, but this is the whole of moral duty" (Temple in 'Mens Creatix' in 1917)-"the rightness of an act, then, nearly always, and perhaps always, depends on the way in which that act is related to circumstances..."(Temple in 'A Conditional Justification of War' in 1958)
- the Zeitgeist-situation ethics developed out of a generated which wanted peace (after WW2) and believed in the power of love-sometimes called 'hippies' or the 'flower power' generation, they embraced a new approach to humanity which involved understanding and co-operation-in the US, the post war (60's) generation wanted an end to racial discrimination and campaigned against the Vietnam war
- legalism-the idea that ethical decision making is by a system of laws-it is an over reliance on rules-by the time of Jesus, the Pharisees had 613 specific rules or precepts to uphold-Fletcher argues Natural Law is guilty of excessive legalism, and Protestants who take the Bible literally are no better
- antinomianism-literally means to have no laws-antinomians believe in freedom to act as one sees fit in any circumstance-some Christians may claim to act 'as the spirit leads'-to have no rules at all leads to anarchy, as we don't know what to do from one situation to the next
- situationism-is the right approach between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism for Fletcher-involves taking the principles of your community and using them to 'illuminate' situations-this means knowing when to apply the principle and when to recognise the exceptions for Fletcher-like tactics in a game, the expert player knows when to ignore the general rule; they know what agape requires in that situation
- four working principles: pragmatism-pragmatism is a philosophical idea that suggests truth should be understood in terms of what works, and is based on the work of American philosophers William James and John Dewey-the question 'what will work?' is more important than the question 'what is true?'-Fletcher doesn't want theoretical solutions; he requires that a solution works in practice-situation ethics is grounded in experience not theory
- four working principles: relativism-love is the absolute, everything else is relative to it-although 'love' is the 'why' of our actions, the 'how' is contingent and changes-Fletcher argues that the situationist avoids words like 'never' and 'perfect' and 'always' and 'complete' as he avoids the plague, as he avoids 'absolutely'
- four working principles: positivism-we can't look at the world and discover moral laws as Natural Law thinks-values are decided by starting with faith in God and 'positively' reasoning what this might mean in each situation-we create the 'good' rather than discovering it-we decide our values by looking at the situation
- four working principles: personalism-people are the ultimate moral value-ethics is about human relations, yet the legalist is only concerned with laws and rules-situation ethics says that everything is related to the good of persons-"Love is of people, by people and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved" (Fletcher in 'Situation Ethics')-Jesus placed people above rules, such as with the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)
- six propositions: only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love: nothing else at all-some things are extrinsically good, which means they are good because they serve some end e.g. walking is good because we aim to be healthy-other things are good in themselves, they are intrinsically good, and only love is truly good in itself
- six propositions: the ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else-in the New Testament, Jesus consistently replaces the Old Testament laws with the principle of love e.g. by healing someone, hence working, on the Sabbath-where law and love conflict, we must follow love-Fletcher reminds us that Jesus summed up there whole of Jewish law as 'Love God' and 'Love your Neighbour'
- six propositions: love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else-justice and love are not opposites or in tension as is often thought (by which justice might want to see a criminal punished, but love may urge forgiveness)-justice is Christian love being applied rationally and in a calculated manner-Fletcher suggests that this isn't a sentimental love, but is the calculation made by businessmen, generals or doctors in deciding who benefits the most
- six propositions: love wills the neighbour good whether we like him or not-love is an attitude not a feeling; we are dealing with agape not eros-agape love is selfless and is not necessarily reciprocal; it doesn't require anything in return-it isn't sentimental, so the neighbour can be anyone we come across e.g. in the parable of the Good Samaritan-Fletcher notes that Jesus' command to love even extends to loving our enemies (Matthew 5: 43-48)
- six propositions: only the end justifies the means, nothing else-Fletcher isn't suggesting that any end is justified by any means, but that any loving end is justified by any means-it's whether the end is worthwhile that determines whether the action is worthwhile-Fletcher uses the example of the WW2 resistance fighters who routinely lied and even killed members of their own side because of the importance of their cause
- six propositions: love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively-love is the norm but it doesn't tell us what to do in a specific situation-we have to gather the facts rather than decide the case before we know the facts-one particular issue is sexual ethics where he argues that Christianity has become overly obsessed with rules at the expenses of deciding on a situational basis; Fletcher doesn't answer the question as to whether adultery is wrong; he replies, 'Give me a real case'
- conscience-Fletcher argues traditional understandings of conscience are mistaken, as conscience is often seen as a thing - a noun e.g. voice of God according to Catholic J.H. Newman or inbuilt reasoning tool for Aquinas-conscience isn't a thing that we possess, it's an activity we do-conscience is a verb not a noun and refers to the process of deciding-Fletcher cites Paul's reference to conscience in the New Testament in support of this and states conscience is a director (before & during event), not a reviewer (after event)-this process is the process of 'conscience-ing'
- abortion after rape-in 1962 before abortion was legalised in America, a young patient at a psychiatric unit became pregnant after being raped by a fellow patient-the patient's father requested an abortion take place-the doctors refused on the grounds that abortion was only permitted when the mother's life was in danger--> Fletcher suggests this is the wrong outcome. This illustrates how legalism can make the wrong decision. Situation ethics is person centred not legalistic
- sacrificial suicide/ euthanasia-a terminally ill man is offered expensive medical treatment that'll prolong his life for a few extra months-it'll probably keep him alive long enough for his medical insurance to run out, so his family wouldn't benefit when he dies-if he refuses the medication & dies before the insurance runs out, his family will receive a generous sum--> SE is teleological. What makes an action right is that it leads to a good outcome. Fletcher is a pragmatist, so in this case, it may be permissible to break the normal moral rule & refuse treatment
- sexual ethics - adultery-German Mrs Bergmeier was in a Russian prisoner of war camp; she became aware her family were alive in Germany & looking for her-the only way you could obtain release from camp was through pregnancy; she would then be returned to Germany as a liability-she persuaded a friendly camp guard to help her become pregnant-upon return to her family, they welcomed her & her child with open arms--> SE is relativist, so in the circumstances suggested above, SE would argue adultery was morally justified & was the most loving thing
- sexual ethics - prostitution-a female govt. agent is asked by her superiors to seduce an enemy spy in order to obtain important info-she said she was unsure as to whether she could compromise her integrity in this way-she was told they wouldn't pressurise her to do it, but it was similar to her brother's role in fighting on the front line risking his life-given the info she'd get could shorten war & save lives, should she?--> Fletcher doesn't suggest an answer. He has given us a method that will help us to decide for ourselves. It's left to the young woman's conscience
- counter to Fletcher's decision on euthanasia-a legalist might say the family are committing fraud by trying to deceive the insurance company-if everyone tried to do this, then medical insurance charges would need to go up to cover all the fraudulent claims and this wouldn't be good for anyone-Kant may say deception is lying and can't be tolerated or excused in any form, otherwise no one will be able to trust anyone
- Situation ethics is to be seen as a religious ethical theory because:-Jesus, who, when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish Law, suggested only 2 commands are needed: 'Love God' & 'Love your neighbour as yourself'-Jesus' attitudes to the Pharisees in the NT shows an opposition to the legalism of his day. A good religious ethic doesn't have to be based on definite rules-idea that love is key evidence of genuine religious faith is found in Jesus: 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another' (John 13:34-35) & Augustine's teachings
- situation ethics should not really be seen as a religious ethical because:-SE has been rejected by the established Church. It was condemned at the time of Fletcher's writing by Pope Pius XII. It was in clear opposition to NL on a number of key issues-can be argued Fletcher's reading of the words of Jesus is highly selective. Jesus clearly condemns divorce and adultery, and speaks about hell far more than heaven-Jesus tells his disciples that if they love him they are to obey his commandments; implies there are commandments other than love
- Fletcher's interpretation of agape-Fletcher's interpretation of agape as unconditional wishing the best for our neighbour isn't explicitly Christian-there is little difference between SE and act utilitarianism-Fletcher isn't overly worried by this, however, and at one point in his book suggests SE is basically a Christian utilitarianism
- issue with relativism-its able to deal with exceptional situations, hence avoiding the legalism that some versions of natural law may lead us to-a key attraction of situation ethics, as with all relativistic theories, is its flexibility-it enables people to keep the spirit of the law without being obsessed with the letter of the law--> BUT situation ethics faces the difficulty that, as a relativist theory, it is vague; the suggestion that we should do the most loving thing is not particularly specific or clear
- issue with moral boundaries-situation ethics enables a decision to be made in each situation-absolutist theories can struggle with difficult situations where there are two conflicting duties-situation ethics enables us to choose the lesser of the two evils--> BUT there are no moral boundaries. Everything could be permitted if the situation was extreme enough. This doesn't seem right. Some things, e.g. rape or genocide, are just inherently wrong and no circumstances could ever make them right
- issue with predictions-situation ethics is person-centred and as such seems closer to the teachings of Jesus, who consistently put people above rules--> BUT situation ethics as a teleological theory requires that we are able to make predictions about the outcome that our actions will produce. Yet we don't always know whether what we have done will produce the most loving outcome
- issue with love and responsibility-love as a principle is 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--> BUT similarly, 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 for at the moment of decision?
- issue with situation ethics being similar to act utilitarianism-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 doesn't necessarily see this as an objection to his theory
- issue with interpretation-for a religious thinker, agape is an excellent principle and, according to Jesus, sums up the most important commandments--> BUT 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
- issue with breaking rules-the principle of agape is useful in helping us know when to accept the general rules (sophia) and when to break them-it is flexible to different situations--> BUT 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 & 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
- issue with whether it is the best principle-agape is a relativist principle but, unlike the pleasure principle of utilitarianism, it doesn't seem as easy to manipulate-it's harder to argue murder/racism can be a loving act even though in extreme circumstances this may bring pleasure to an evil majority--> BUT there may be better principles upon which to base ethics.These may involve pleasure, duty or purpose according to other ethical theories. A religious believer may argue God directly reveals commands & a stress on agape may lead a believer away from the revelation
- issue with individualism-rather than relying on external authorities, SE gives responsibility and autonomy in moral decision-making; SE treats individuals as adults--> BUT the emphasis on individual decision-making means that this could never be an ethic that could be applied in a society, as views of love differ
- issue with community-situations & contexts differ greatly and it's important flexibility is retained-SE recognises what is right for 1 person in a specific situation may not suit other people who're faced with a slightly different situation--> BUT other thinkers who've used love as the basis of decision-making have recognised the importance of community for ethical decision-making e.g. Bonhoeffer's community at Finkenwalde made decisions based on communal Bible reading, prayer & conversation. They recognised the importance of other people in discerning the right course of action