Mayank Mittal.pptx

Situation Ethics
Mayank Mittal
Group-213

Background
Copyright © 2015 Active Education
peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations
• Joseph Fletcher wrote his book in 1966
• He claims a moment of revelation when listening to a St Louis
cabbie determine to ‘lay principle aside and do the right thing’
• Argues for one absolute principle – love (Greek agape meaning
sacriﬁcial love)
• Sees his theory as lying between antinomianism (no law) and
legalism (adherence to law)
• Can be seen as a form of liberal Christian ethics, taken up by
Bishop John Robinson in Honest to God

Fletcher, Robinson, Tillich
• Fletcher and Robinson sought an ethical theory which would bring people back
towards making Christian moral decisions, but which didn’t have the legalism
associated with religion.
• Robinson said that Situation Ethics was for “Man come of age”: it was for people
who were moving away from having to be told what to do by God, and yet it still
had the Christian ﬂavour. It was between legalism and antinomianism.
• Robinson and Tillich suggested that God could be understood as ‘the ground of
our being’, of ultimate signiﬁcance, but not a deus ex machina, a supernatural
being who intervenes in the world from outside it. In other words God is part of
people (immanent) not this almighty transcendent being who barks instructions
at us to follow (as in Divine Command Theory).

THREE ETHICAL POSITIONS
LEGALISTIC
•ABSOLUTE
•NO EXCEPTIONS
•Divine Command Theory
SITUATIONAL
• ONE ABSOLUTE
(AGAPE)
• RELATIVISTIC
• Consequentialism
ANTINOMIAN
• TOTAL AUTONOMY
• NO RULES
•NO ABSOLUTES

Agape
• Unconditional Love (1 JOHN 4:16, 21)
• Derived from hesed in the Old Testament (EXODUS 34:6)
• Embodied in Jesus Christ (JOHN 1:14)
• An act of will or disposition – “… goodwill at work in partnership
with reason” in seeking the “neighbour’s best interest with a
careful eye to all the factors in a situation”. Fletcher

Four working principles
• Pragmatism
• Personalism
• Positivism
• Relativism

Pragmatism
•For a course of action to be right it must be
practical
• “A thought or action must work” (P
. 42)

Relativism
• Fletcher calls his theory ‘principled relativism’, because ‘it
relativises the absolute, it doesn’t absolutise the relative”
• By this he means that the absolute principle of agape must be
made relative to every contingent situation in order to discover
what is right.
• It is a form of relativism in application, not in the principle itself
(agape) which never changes is meaning.

Positivism
• Fletcher uses a new meaning of positivism, not the same as for
example, AJ Ayer uses in ‘logical positivism’ meaning
‘empirically provable’.
• Theological positivism means you have to start with a positive
choice or commitment -faith comes before reason.

Personalism
• People come ﬁrst.
• Fletcher argues that ‘the legalist is a what asker (what does the
law say?) whereas the situationist is a who asker (who is to be
helped?) pg50
• He sees his theory in this sense having echoes of Kant’s second
maxim “treat person as ends, never as means’ pg 51
• We need to respect individual autonomy, choice and dignity and
we always see their welfare and needs as paramount

The six fundamental principles
• Confusingly Fletcher talks of six fundamental principles, as well
as the four working principles of pragmatism, positivism,
personalism and relativism.
• Here we consider four of the most important: beginning with
“love only is always good’.
• Fletcher argues that only love has intrinsic value because it
helps people – it is the purpose of any action which deﬁnes its
goodness not the nature of the act itself. A lie is only good or
bad with reference to the loving purpose of the lie or its lack of
love.

Love is the only norm
• Fletcher argues that ‘the ruling norm of Christian decision is
love, nothing else’.
• Love replaces the law in Christian ethics.
• Fletcher rejects Roman Catholic natural law as ‘there are no
(natural) universal laws held by all men everywhere at all times’
• Fletcher therefore attracts the opposition of the Catholic Church
– in Veritatis Splendor, for example.

Love and Justice are the same
• ‘Justice is love distributed, nothing else’.
• The injustices we see in the world, of starving children in Africa
for example are due, says Fetcher to lack of love shown by the
food-rich west.
• We see our neighbours as those we know, whereas our
real neighbours encompass the whole of humanity.

Love and liking are no the same
• ‘Love wills the neighbour’s good, whether we like him or not’.
• Fletcher cites Martin Luther King’s campaign of non-violence in
the segregated south of America. He didn’t like the oppressor,
but taught we should love them with a ‘creative, redemptive
good will to all men’.
• When King marched, he often faced violence but did not hit
back.

The end of love justifies the means
• ‘Only the end justifies the means, nothing else’.
• When Dietrich Bonhoeffer joined the resistance in Nazi
Germany, he justified lying and assassination by arguing the
good end justifed the evil means.
• Fletcher similarly argues the end always justifies the means.
• The bomb plot that caused Bonhoeffer’s arrest and execution in
1945 is dramatised in the film Valkyrie

One of Fletcher’s examples
• Try to use Fletcher’s examples if you can in your work, rather than your
own. Don’t forget to talk about them as well, they shouldn’t just be stuck in
randomly
• Never write out the whole story, just refer to it. For example
• Fletcher used the example “Sacriﬁcial Adultery” where a POW woman
debates on whether to have commit adultery in order to get pregnant and
so be released and sent back to her family.
• The point Fletcher was making was that surely it was the best thing (the
most loving thing) for the mother to break the Commandment “Do not
commit adultery” in order to get home to her children. This has to be the
most loving thing for her and all even though it breaks one of God’s
commandments. Surely God would not think this immoral as this is not
why he gave that particular law in the ﬁrst place?

Were the bombs at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki jutifiable?
• On Aug 6th 1945 the Enola Gay dropped the atom bomb on
Hiroshima.
• When he saw the mushroom cloud Capt Lewis exclaimed ‘my
God, what have we done?’.
• But 126,000 American POWs were due to be executed when
the first American set foot on Japanese soil.
• The Japanese honour code included fight to the death and
kamakaze pilots who crashed specially designed human flying
bombs.

Even Eisenhower had second thoughts
• "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious
of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave
misgivings, ﬁrst on the basis of my belief that Japan was
already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely
unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country
should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon
whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a
measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan
was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a
minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by
my attitude..."
• -Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

Apply Fletcher’s ethic
• To the idea of rendition for torture
• To the argument for euthanasia
• Or another morally difﬁcult case in the newspapers

Summary – situation ethics
• It is an attempt to link Christianity with new morality for
‘man come of age’ (Robinson)
• It focuses on Jesus’parable of the Good Samaritan and
opposition to Pharisaic legalism
• It rejects absolute rules as it solves moral dilemmas
situationally and circumstantially
• It focuses on positivism and personalism
• It is a form of Christian ethic – ‘principled relativism’ is
how Fletcher describes it

1. Barclay said the examples Fletcher used to illustrate situation ethics are extreme cases. He
asked how often people had to make life and death decisions on which situation ethics
seemed to be based? He said: “It is much easier to agree that extraordinary situations need
extraordinary measures than to think that there are no laws for ordinary life.” (Ethics in a
Permissive Society, 1971)
2. He said that the suggestion that laws could be abandoned if needed was too optimistic.
Humans needs laws for protection etc and how would people know exactly when it was “the
most loving thing” to abandon them? A circumstance to one, may not be to another.
3. He argued that it is hard for individuals to make their own moral decisions in every
situation. We can be swayed by emotion or fear and persuade ourselves that we are doing
the most loving thing when really we are doing the thing that suits ourselves the most.
William Barclay’s Criticisms

Situation ethics is subjective
because decisions are made
from within the situation as it
is perceived to be.
Situation ethics could prove
unworkable because it isn’t
easy to determine all the
consequences of an action.
It is individualistic because humans see things from their own perspective.
There is a danger that the ideals of unconditional love may be polluted by a selfish human tendency and
people using it as an excuse for not obeying the rules. How many parents can show equal love to
strangers as to their own children?
This argument made Robinson withdraw his support for Situation Ethics
Situation ethics seems to be
prepared to accept any
action at all if it fits the
required criteria.
What is believed to be a
loving end by some could
justify actions that many
people would regard as
wrong.
Pius XII

Mayank Mittal.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mayank Mittal.pptx

Similar to Mayank Mittal.pptx (12)

More from MrMedicine

More from MrMedicine (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mayank Mittal.pptx