Situation Ethics

• Situation ethics was created by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s.
• Situation ethics is a product of its time, and deliberately so.
• The 60s were defined by radical social movements aimed at overthrowing traditional ways of life which were seen as oppressive.
• Religion faces a dilemma in the face of such modernising forces; whether to adapt and reform itself or attempt to carry on as if nothing had changed.
• Joseph Fletcher's approach embodies liberal Christianity in many ways.
• Fletcher rejected the traditional approach to Christian ethics of strict adherence to moral laws.
• Instead of strict adherence to moral laws, Fletcher attempted a reduction of Christian ethics to what many would agree is the overarching theme of Jesus’ ethics: love.
• Legalism is the view that people require fixed rules to follow.
• Antinomianism is the view that there are no rules or laws to follow at all.
• The most prevalent ethical theme of the Bible is love, as per Fletcher.
• Fletcher faces the criticism that his theory cannot be considered properly Christian, since it seems to only follow the command to love, ignoring most of the teachings in the Bible.
• Martin Luther’s theory of 'sola scriptura' argues that the 'Bible alone' is the source of moral authority, not the autonomous individual deciding the demands of agape in their situation.
• When faced with a moral choice, we have to decide there and then in that situation what the right thing to do is.
• Situation ethics is designed for modern society and Fletcher and Robinson argue that humanity has 'come of age', meaning become more mature.
• William Barclay disagreed with situation ethics, arguing that it gives moral agents a dangerous amount of freedom.
• Barclay argues that mankind has not yet come of age and so 'still needs the crutch and protection of law'.
• Fletcher believed that the conscience was what enabled us to figure out the requirements of agape in our situation.
• Fletcher disagreed with the traditional view that conscience is an internal moral compass or mental ability to intuitively know what is right or wrong.
• Fletcher founded situation ethics on a liberal approach to the Bible, arguing that traditional legalistic approaches to the bible face a dilemma.
• Fletcher argues that the Bible should not be thought of as a legalistic 'rules book', but as offering 'some paradigms or suggestions'.
• Fletcher claimed that his situation ethics was a middle ground which avoids the problems of each extreme while retaining the benefit of each.
• The downside of legalism is that it cannot take the situation into account, the downside of antinomianism is that it leads to moral chaos.
• The upside of legalism is that it has clear guidance for people to follow, the upside of antinomianism is that it takes the situation into account.
• Situation ethics takes the situation into account, gives people clear guidance and avoids moral chaos.
• Situation ethics claims that love is the one single absolute principle which should be applied to all situations.
• Mouw and Pius XII’s arguments are unsuccessful because they beg the question regarding the validity of taking a legalistic approach.
• Christ himself frequently spoke of the importance of following all the commandments.
• Secular morality and general well-wishing are not distinctive from situation ethics or the approach to ethics taken by Jesus.
• Fletcher claims the ends justifies the means, but Romans 3:8 condemns that.
• In that case, it cannot be viewed legalistically.
• The themes and paradigms of the bible are also a matter of subjective interpretation.
• Pope Pius XII criticised situation ethics on similar grounds.
• Fletcher is therefore unwittingly attacking Christ.
• Furthermore, would Jesus have bothered to make any other commandments if agape is the only one that is ultimately matters?
• Fletcher has not solved the problem of how to interpret the Bible, he has merely kicked the can down the road.
• Agape doesn’t just mean love, it means Christian love, more specifically it means selfless love.
• A full appreciation of Jesus’ ethics involves both legalism and situationism.
• If a commandment is only to be followed when it accords with agape, and should be ignored if it conflicts with agape, then agape is the only commandment you actually need.
• Richard Mouw points out that it makes no sense to reduce Christian ethics to only one of Jesus’ commands when Jesus made other commands too.
• Fletcher does not want to disregard rules and commandments, only the insistence on the legalistic approach to their application.