Situation Ethics

882 Words2 Pages

Situation Ethics

An Anglican theologian Joseph Fletcher developed situation Ethics.

Legalism is the idea that there are fixed moral laws which are to be

obeyed at all times. Antinomianism is the idea that there are no fixed

moral principles but that one acts morally spontaneously. Fletcher

rejects Legalism because it cannot accommodate 'exceptions to the

rule'. If you reject one aspect of the law you surely reject it all.

He also rejects Antinomianism on the basis of existentialist ethics

which argues that reality is composed of singular events and moments

in time.

In advocating a situationist ethic Fletcher argued that it is not the

'primary precept' which is the bedrock for the 'secondary precept' but

quite the reverse. It is in fact the individual and the situation that

is the most important thing as it is the application of an ethical

principle that makes an action good or evil. Within each context it is

not the overriding 'primary precept' that is to be followed, but

instead the law of love 'to do whatever is the most loving thing'. In

the Christian tradition this may be expressed as, 'Love your neighbour

as you love yourself' (Matthew 22:39)

The precept to do whatever is the most loving thing is not a law but a

motive and an attitude that can inform moral choice. Each situation

should be taken differently and act in love accordingly even if that

means breaking established moral rules/codes of practice. For example,

it is considered wrong to steal but if by stealing a gun you are

preventing a person from killing people ...

... middle of paper ...

...ective.

A strong argument against is the fact love is de-valued with this

argument, situation ethics is fundamentally vague, resting on a very

indefinite definition of love, and could in practice be used to

justify anything. It takes relativism in the sense of opposing an

excess of absolute rules to the extreme of relativism in the sense of

'anything goes, so long as the motive can be described as "loving".'

If the basis of right and wrong is the way actions affect human beings

- as situation ethics agrees - then surely we should just consider

their consequences, and not some conception of how loving the person

in question's motives were.

I believe that with all these weaknesses it leaves the theory very

weak as it can be used to justify anything as it is forcing you to

think from quite a selfish point of view.

Open Document