Situation Ethics: Lesson 3

Work your way through the following booklet of notes and complete the activities as you go along.

Joseph Fletcher’s four presumptions

You heard about the 4 presumptions in the Peter Baron clip you watched on youtube. Now read to find out about them in more depth…

Pragmatism:

The word ‘pragmatism’ is focused on having a practical attitude to situations. The decision maker should approach each situation asking ‘what will work in this situation’ i.e. what will produce the greatest love, not ‘what does the law say I should do’. The answer may or may not be ‘follow the ten commandments’ depending on the outcome of the action. The right thing to do is what works, not what the law says. Possible example: A group in hiding will be discovered if the baby cries – when it starts crying the mother smothers it because that is what shows and promotes the greatest love. In this situation, this was, according to Situation Ethics the pragmatic decision.

Relativism:

No actions are intrinsically right or wrong – they become right or wrong simply depending on their outcome – possible examples: adultery; cannibalism or as above. In simpler terms, all actions are relative to the situation you find yourself in. For example, the law states that ending a person’s life is an act of murder. However, if that person had a debilitating illness and was in serious pain and discomfort with little quality of life we may say the loving thing to do would be to end the person’s life. Therefore, actions are right or wrong relative to love.

Positivism:

Joseph Fletcher started with the belief that God exists. As God exists faith demands that we do the most positive thing or in other words do the most loving thing. It is belief in God that leads us to do positive actions. The actions carried out should always lead to the most loving and positive outcome.

Personalism:

Situation Ethics is based on the command to love people not rules. While the legalist asks ‘WHAT must I do?’ the situationist asks ‘WHO needs help?’ People are of value because they are made in the image of God. Fletcher approves of Immanuel Kant’s maxim ‘Treat people as ends, not a means to an end.’ Our decisions should not be individualistic but be based on what the most loving thing for all involved.

Task:

The issue Arguments based on legalism / absolutes / deontology

Arguments based on situation ethics

Euthanasia “Do not kill”

“Turn the other cheek”

Sanctity of life – life belongs to God and only God should end life

Apply 3-4 of the fundamental principles and the 4 working principles to the issue of euthanasia:

Example:

The end justifies the means – ending a life is acceptable and loving because the person is suffering and has poor quality of life.

Relativism – the decision does not follow the law because it is based on the situation.

YOUR APPLICATION OF 3 – 4 OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES TO THE ISSUE OF EUTHANASIA

Is situation ethics a helpful/practical form of ethical decision making?Yes No

It is flexible in that it gives personal freedom to people to decide what the most loving action is. In this sense it is a very helpful method because you are not constrained by the difficulties of legalism. Likewise, it is not antinomian as it uses the rule of agape as a guide. This rule is based on the Christian principle of unconditional love.

Karl Barth would argue that situation ethics is very vague – It’s impossible to say what you’re supposed to do. How do you work out what the most loving thing is, if it changes from situation to situation especially due to the corrupt nature of human beings. It would be better to follow divine revelation such as the Bible and Church tradition.

It is based on one simple rule, namely agape (love). Fletcher argues that this simple rules brings positive outcomes, maintains justice and also puts the needs of others (our neighbour) first. In simpler terms Fletcher provides 6 fundamental principles highlighting how decisions should be based on love not laws. These principles offer clear guidance on the application of situation ethics.

If we were all like Jesus, then doing the most loving thing might work. William Barclay believed we (humans) can’t be trusted to do the right thing, and it would only work ‘if all men were angels’. This is supported by Augustine’s interpretation of humanity which is fallen. We do not act like angels, instead we misuse our free will.

It is relative which means that we are not restricted by moral absolutes. It takes into account the complexities of life and reflects the concerns that people hard with ‘absolutes’. Unlike Kantian ethics which is rigid and fixed situation ethics acknowledges that sometimes doing the right thing may mean treating people as a means to an end.

Traditional Christian thinkers have rejected Fletcher’s understanding of Jesus. In 1952 Pope Pius XII called Situationism, ‘an individualistic and subjective’ theory which will ‘justify decisions in opposition to the natural law’. The law and absolutes are there for the protection of society – legalism is therefore the safer and better option than situation ethics

Situation ethics, by its own definition is a practical and flexible system for making moral decisions. For example, Fletcher’s working principles of pragmatism and relativism show that decisions are made situationally and highlights that absolutes such as ‘Do not kill’ or ‘Do not steal’ do not always bring about the most loving outcome. Fletcher provides examples in his own theory when a liberal approach to laws must be taken in order to secure a loving outcome.

The rule of agape can be highly impractical. Situation ethics may in fact offer justification for not only breaking religious laws such as the ‘commandments’ but also civil laws. If society begins to adopt this ethical system over and above the laws of the land then the basis of our society would crumble.

Examples used by Fletcher such as dropping the bomb on Hiroshima or a Jewish woman having to smother her own child to avoid capture of the group are extreme and very rare cases. We can argue that situation ethics is weak based simply on these. Fletcher argues that his approach is practical yet his examples are far from it.

Is Fletcher’s understanding of agape really religious or does it mean nothing more than wanting the best for the person involved in a given situation

Is a religious ethical approach Is not a religious ethical approach

Task: Read the evaluative question above highlighted in yellow, then read the arguments that agree and disagree with the question in the table above….

a)Explain which of the yes/agree arguments is the strongest and the weakest and say why.

b)Explain which of the no/disagree arguments is the strongest and the weakest and say why.

Joseph Fletcher would clearly argue that situation ethics can be considered a Christian form of moral decision making. The ethical theory has a Biblical basis both in the golden rule of Jesus which outlines that we should ‘treat others as we would like to be treated’ and the teaching of St. Paul who clearly outlined in his letter to the Corinthians that love was the most important virtue. These are two Biblical examples of ‘agape’ being used by key Christian figures.

Christianity today follows a more legalistic character based on absolutes such as those outlined in the ‘Ten Commandments’. In this sense, situation ethics is incompatible with Christianity as it is not a legalistic approach to ethics but rather one that is relative to the situation.

Jesus seemed to be prepared to set aside some rules in some cases, usually because a person mattered more than the rule. So he was prepared to associate with and touch people traditionally viewed as unclean, the sinners, the sick and the tax collectors.

The Catholic Church have very clear rules regarding the sanctity of life (the idea that life is holy and belongs to God). In this respect they would always view the ending of human life by another human as wrong whereas situation ethics would make this decision relative to the situation. This means that Fletcher’s understanding of agape is not really religious but simply working out what is the best for those involved in a situation.

Fletcher’s understanding of agape can be seen as religious because it develops a principle from Jesus’ action of breaking the law when the situation demanded it for reasons of love. In this sense it could be argued that SE is more consistent with the New Testament e.g. Jesus healing the man with the paralysed hand on the Sabbath day.

Traditional Christian thinkers have rejected Fletcher’s understanding of Jesus. In 1952 Pope Pius XII called Situationism, ‘an individualistic and subjective’ theory which will ‘justify decisions in opposition to the natural law’.

Fletcher was inspired by Jesus’ gospel message of love and he argued that Jesus taught no ethics other than “love thy neighbour as thyself”. Fletcher’s six fundamental principles are all focused on the idea of love, for example: “Love wills the neighbour’s good regardless of whether the neighbour is liked or not.”

The Catholic Church would argue that ethical decision making should be based on a number of forms of authority. Fletcher uses one principle ‘agape’ but the Church would argue that the Bible, tradition and importantly ‘Natural Law’ are preferable ways in which we should make moral decisions.

Does the rejection of absolute rules by situation ethics make moral decision-making entirely individualistic and subjective?

Yes No

Situation ethics allows terrible things to happen in an attempt to do the right thing. Due to Fletcher’s principle that the ‘end’ can justify the

Laws, according to Fletcher have been developed or formulated through agape (love). Therefore, if we use love then we are acting

Task: Read the evaluative question above highlighted in yellow, then read the arguments that agree and disagree with the question in the table above….

a)Explain which of the yes/agree arguments is the strongest and the weakest and say why.

b)Explain which of the no/disagree arguments is the strongest and the weakest and say why.

‘means’ some people worry that dangerous boundary lines could be crossed e.g. wanton murder as opposed to euthanasia.

lawfully and will not go to extremes. We will not just focus on ourselves but love will mean that we focus on others well-being too.

Situation ethics is fundamentally vague, resting on a very ambiguous definition of love, and could in practice be used to justify anything. It takes relativism in the sense of opposing a plethora (plethora meaning an overabundance or too many!) of absolute rules to the extreme of relativism in the sense of 'anything goes, so long as the motive can be described as "loving".'

Agape is the quality control of situation ethics. If we look at Fletcher’s four presumptions we can see that each of them is a way of testing how the rule of agape can be applied e.g. is it practical or will it bring about a positive result.

There are no boundaries in situation ethics as it does not abide by any form of legalism. In this sense it is close to antinomianism as people make decisions relative to the situation which could be different all the time.

Agape is the rule. It is impossible to see how someone following this ethic of ‘love’ would commit obscene acts such as murder or rape in the name of love.

Christian love can become individualistic. The individual has too much control or influence, and people tend to be selfish. If someone is given complete freedom with no rules governing them they are more likely to misuse this power.

Jesus applied situation ethics because he seemed to agree that ‘love and justice are the same’. Jesus would not have followed agape if he felt it could be used to justify any act. It was the guiding rule of agape that led to the decisions Jesus made to break Sabbath laws.

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. Subjectivity can never be the standard for human conduct. “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes” (Proverbs 16:2).

Situation ethics is a middle ground between legalism and antinomianism. Due to this fact it cannot be said that it has no rules. In fact, situation ethics will abide by rules but just might not follow the same rule in every situation.

OVER TO YOU:1. What do you think? Is Situation ethics a useful ethical theory? Explain your answer.

Task: Read the evaluative question above highlighted in yellow, then read the arguments that agree and disagree with the question in the table above….

a)Explain which of the yes/agree arguments is the strongest and the weakest and say why.

b)Explain which of the no/disagree arguments is the strongest and the weakest and say why.

2. Can you give some reasons why people may not find this approach to ethics convincing?

3. Although this theory is centered on the Christian principle of Agape, do you think it is a good example of a Christian approach to ethics?

Extended Reading – Complete a close reading of the following Dialogue Articles:

How to do a close reading:

Read with a pencil or highlighter in hand, and annotate the text. "Annotating" means underlining or highlighting key words and phrases—anything that strikes you as surprising or significant, or that raises questions—as well as making notes in the margins.

Additional Notes:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________