Situation Ethics

1. Situations Ethics is where there is no absolute right or wrong, but everything is looked at in context. This also means that there are no universal rules or morals. A person who uses situation ethics may have some morals and guidelines but will accept that they can’t be applied to every situation. Every problem has its own unique solution. Situation Ethics

2. Joseph Fletcher and Situation Ethics Joseph Fletcher was responsible for the development of situation ethics in the 1960s. He argued that absolute rules are too restrictive and it isn’t possible to know God’s will in every situation. So the only universal rule is love, or agape, and what is the most loving thing to, and this is what Christians should base their decisions on. Fletcher quoted a St Louis cab driver who said “Sometimes you’ve got to put your principles to one side and do the right thing”. Rules and principles aren’t the same thing as doing what is right He had 4 working principles and 6 working principles.

3. The four working principles Pragmatism – What you propose has to work in practice Relativism – The rejection of words like always, never, absolute. There are no fixed rules apart from decisions being made relative to agape. Positivism – A value judgement has to be made, giving the first place to love. Personalism – People are put in first place, morality is personal and not centred on laws.

4. The six fundamental principles The only absolute is love (agape). It is the only this that is intrinsically right and good, regardless of the situation. This love is self-giving, which seeks the best interest of others, but allows people the freedom to choose the right thing for themselves. Justice will follow love, because “justice is love disturbed.” Examples of where justice is nor present, show a lack of love. If love was equal, there would be no injustice. Love has no preference or favourites. It doesn’t give preferential treatment, it is a good which will reach out to strangers, acquaintances, friends or even enemies. Love must be the final end, not a means to an end. You must choose your course of action based on the outcome being the most loving. You can’t do the most loving things in order to have a different outcome. The most loving thing to do is dependant on the situation. Something that is the most loving to do in one situation may be the worst thing to do in another situation. For example

5. Strengths and weaknesses of Situation Ethics Strengths Situation Ethics are easy to understand and can also be constantly updated for new problems that arise, e.g. medical advances that challenge peoples views, stem cell research. It is flexible and can be applies to any situation, but is still based on the Christian concept of love. Situation Ethics allow people to take responsibility for their own decisions and make up their own ideas about what is right and wrong. It focuses on humans ad concern for others Weaknesses In 1952 Pope Pius XII condemned situation ethics, saying that it’s wrong to base decisions on individual circumstances if it goes against the teaching of the bible. It doesn’t allow for universal rules, therefore things like Human Rights can’t be achieved. It’s not clear what ‘love’ is exactly, it may mean different things to different people. Situation Ethics can be used to approve of almost anything if the outcome is seen as loving, for example murder, lying, and if we can approve of these things in one scenario, then it will be difficult for different authorities (governments) to implement rules that condemn their usage in other situations.

6. Attempted exam question (b) To what extent can situation ethics inform out moral decisions (10 marks) I think that situation ethics can be used to inform our moral decisions well, because universal rules restrict us from doing what we may see as the best option. For example, if you are in a runaway train cart on a track, at the end of the track is 5 people that you will kill. There is a track off to the side that you can choose to switch to, but at the end is 1 person that you will kill. Some rules may say that the 5 people dying is out of your control, therefore not your fault; if you switch the track then you’ve made the decision to kill that 1 person, so you’re at fault. I think however, that the best thing to do, is to switch to killing 1 person , even though you’ve made a conscious decision to kill 1 person, it’s the best thing to do, as 1 life lost is better than 5. Some people may think that situation ethics cannot inform our moral decisions well because they lack consistency. In one situation lying may be acceptable by situation ethics, but in another it may be not acceptable. If this is the case, then we can’t learn from any actions that we’ve completed. Another reason that situation ethics may not be considered an effective way to inform our moral decisions is that it may be used to go against rules that are in the bible, or other holy books. For example if you are a Christian, and you have a relative who is ill and in a lot of pain, situation ethics may say that euthanasia is the most loving option. But the bible says ‘thou shalt not kill’ and if you follow the Bible as a source of authority then you would be going against it by completing the most loving action. A person who would agree with this argument is Pope Pius XII who said that it is wrong to make decisions based on individual circumstance when they go against the teaching of the church. A good thing about situation ethics and how they can inform our moral decisions is that they are flexible and can be adapted to suit changing times including medical advances etc. Overall I think that Situation Ethics can inform our moral decisions as individuals in our own live. But I think that governments and representations of society need to be absolute, because without consistency, they cannot function. For example Human rights, they are necessary to show that the government is treating people fairly, but they can’t be declared if governments use situation ethics.