Situation Ethics

Teleological Morality is dependent on outcomes and not concerned with action motives or
intentions. End justifies the means.

Joseph Fletchers ethical theory of Situation Ethics Situation Ethics
The morality of an action depends on the situation.
Developed his theory in the 1960s when he was then a Christian Episcopal priest.
Other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served.
Agape love: In Christian terms, the unconditional love that they must show their neighbours.

Bishop Robinson, there is no one ethical system that can claim to be Christian.
Rudolf Bultmann argued that Jesus had no ethics apart from love thy neighbour as thyself.

In Situation Ethics, Fletcher offers different ethical principles that he maintains are true to
Christian beliefs. His work is rejected by traditional Christian moralists for his belief that there
are no absolute laws.

Three kinds of ethical theory
Legalistic ethics
Antinomian ethics
Situation ethics

Legalistic ethics has a set of prefabricated moral rules and regulations. Christianity has legalistic
ethical traditions and has been focused on either natural law or Biblical commandments. They
have a deontological and absolute approach.
-ve of legalistic: Fletcher says legalistic ethics runs into problems when lifes complexities
require additional laws.
For example, murder is prohibited; therefore the difference between murder and killing in self-
defence has to be clarified.
All complex alternatives (e.g. self-defence, abortion, killing in war) have to be either included in
the law or new laws created to make them permissible.
This means people almost have to check the manual when deciding whats right or wrong.
Fletcher rejects legalistic ethics.
He says the error made by Catholics is their adherence and devotion to natural law, and by
Protestants the strict obedience of religious principles.

Antinomian ethics is literally the opposite; it does not imply an ethical system at all. An
antinomian enters decision making as if each situation was unique and making moral decisions
is based on the matter of spontaneity.
-ve of antinomian: According to Fletcher, it is literally unprincipled..., and he rejects this too,
as an approach to ethics.

Situation ethics is more concerned with love and people than rules. A situationist enters into
the moral dilemma with the ethics, rules and principles of their community or traditions.
However, they are prepared to set those aside in the situation if love seems better served by
doing so. The situation influences whether rules should be set aside. It agrees on using reason
to implement moral judgements, but disagrees that the good is to be discerned from the nature
of things (as natural law suggests).
The situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to loves need Fletcher.

Situation ethics uses principles to illuminate the situation, but not to direct the action. These
are the six fundamental principles and the four presumptions.

The six fundamental principles

First proposition






Second proposition







Third proposition







Fourth proposition







Only one thing is intrinsically
good; namely love: nothing
else at all.

Love only is always good.
Actions arent intrinsically good
or bad. Depends on whether
they promote a loving result.

The ruling norm of Christian
decision is love: nothing
else.

Love replaces law. Jesus
healed on the Sabbath day.
Law should be obeyed if in
the interest of love.

Love and justice are the
same, for justice is love
distributed, nothing else.

With justice comes love. Any
injustice is example of lack of
love, e.g. child starving. If love
was properly shared there would
be no injustice.
Love wills the neighbours
good, whether we like him or
not.
Love isnt a matter of
sentimental feeling, but the
attitude towards the other
person. Agape love goes out to
anyone, even those you dont
like. Love isnt liking.
Fifth proposition








Sixth proposition








The Four Presumptions
There are four presumptions that Fletcher makes before carrying out his ethical theory:
Pragmatism
Relativism
Positivism
Personalism

Pragmatism means that in order to be right, the proposed course of action must work in
practise and work towards love.
For example, in the case of Jodie and Mary, conjoined twins, the Catholic church (legalists)
wanted to let both of the girls die. They said that to kill one and save the other would be an
evil/bad act, but Fletcher would have disagreed. Letting both girls die is not pragmatic. It would
be of more use, more practical, to save one girl at the expense of the other.

Relativism rejects words such as always, never and absolute. There are no fixed rules
because situationists believe that all circumstances are different. However, all decisions must
be relative to agape. Human beings have to aim for a loving outcome, even if that calls for a
wrong action.
It relativises the absolute, it does not absolutise the relative, - Joseph Fletcher.
This means not all actions (such as murder) are always wrong, such as in self-defence, but it
doesnt mean that self-defence murder can always be justified.

Positivism means you have to start with a positive choice and voluntarily want to do good.
Kants naturalism relies on the right course of action, but in positivism a value judgement has to
be made, giving first place to love. Questions such as why should I love? dont need to be
asked, because there is no rational answer.
Only the end justifies the
means, nothing else.
The end must be the most
loving result. You cant claim to
be right by following a rule, if
you know itll cause great
harm.
Loves decisions are made
situationally, not
prescriptively.
Right/wrong depends on
situation. Most love = right.
Personalism means to put people first, whereas a legalist would put laws first. People are,
therefore, more important that rules.
For example, Jesus healed on the Sabbath day putting people over rules.

Applying situation ethics to embryo research
Questions to use to apply situation ethics:
1. What options are available in this situation?
2. Which of these gives most consideration to the person (or people) in the situation?
3. Pragmatically, how likely is each option to succeed?
4. Regardless of moral laws, how loving (in an unconditional agape sense) will the outcome
or consequences be?
5. To what extent does each option seem to reflect a love that supports the whole
community?

A team of researchers are using embryos donated from IVF to find a cure for Alzheimers
disease.
1. Options available are to use the embryos in an attempt to cure Alzheimers, or destroy
them.
2. Using them for embryo research gives most consideration to the people in the situation
as it is sufferers of the disease who will be affected most by this. Destroying the
embryos doesnt consider many people, only those who are opposed to the use of
embryos in research.
3. Pragmatically, the use of embryos in the research is most practical as it could possibly
cure numerous amounts of people, and the embryos would otherwise be destroyed.
4. The outcome could potentially be very loving if it works. It isnt certain, but even if a
cure isnt found, we are likely to have more knowledge about the disease than we did
before, such as treatment that can slow it. Therefore, it will still have a loving result for
the sufferer.
5. Using the embryos in research is more loving on the whole for the community. Allowing
a person to suffer from a disease when we could potentially find a cure shows an
unbalanced distribution of love. Though using the embryos is disturbing to some people,
the most loving thing for the whole is to do the research rather than destroy the
embryos.

AO2 Issues arising
Strengths and weaknesses of Situation Ethics as an ethical system
Does Christian love allow people to do anything, depending on the context, and how far
is it true that love should be the highest Christian law, overruling all others when
necessary?
How practical is Situation Ethics?
How compatible is Situation Ethics with other Christian approaches to moral decision-
making?