Situational ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Situational ethics, or situation ethics, takes into account the particular context of an act when evaluating it ethically, rather than judging it according to absolute moral standards.[1] Early proponents of situational approaches to ethics included Kierkegaard, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Jaspers, and Heidegger.[2]

Specifically Christian forms of situational ethics placing love about all particular principles or rules were proposed in the first half of the twentieth century by Rudolf Bultmann, John A. T. Robinson, and Joseph Fletcher.[3] These theologians point specifically to agapē, or unconditional love, as the highest end. Other theologians who advocated situational ethics include Josef Fuchs, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Paul Tillich.[4]:33 Tillich, for example, declared that "Love is the ultimate law."[5]

Fletcher, who became prominently associated with this approach in the English-speaking world due to his eponymously-titled book (Situation Ethics), stated that "all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love" in the particular situation,[4]:30 and thus may be broken or ignored if another course of action would achieve a more loving outcome. Fletcher has sometimes been identified as the founder of situation ethics, but he himself refers his readers to the active debate over the theme that preceded his own work.[4]:33-34

Ethical classification and origin of term[edit]

Situational ethics is a form of consequentialism, though distinct from utilitarianism in that the latter's aim is "the greatest good for the greatest number", while situational ethics focuses on creating the greatest amount of love. Situational ethics can also be classed under the ethical theory genre of "proportionalism" which says that "It is never right to go against a principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it."[6] J. A. T. Robinson, a situational ethicist, considered the approach to be a form of ethical relativism.

There was an active debate in the mid-twentieth century around situational ethics, which was being promoted by a number of primarily Protestant theologians. The English term "situation ethics" was taken from the German Situationsethik. It is unclear who first coined the term either in German or in its English variant.

Fletcher[edit]

Fletcher proposed that in forming an ethical system based on love, he was best expressing the notion of "love thy neighbor," which Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels of the New Testament of the Bible. Through situational ethics, Fletcher was attempting to find a "middle road" between legalistic and antinomian ethics. Fletcher developed his theory of situational ethics in his books: The Classic Treatment and Situation Ethics. Situational ethics is thus a teleological or consequential theory, in that it is primarily concerned with the outcome or consequences of an action; the end. Fletcher proposed that loving ends justify any means.[4]

Fletcher outlined his theory in four "working principles" and six "fundamental principles".

The four working principles[edit]

The following are presuppositions Fletcher makes before setting out the situational ethics theory:

  1. Pragmatism - This is that the course of action must be practical and work
  2. Relativism - All situations are always relative; situational ethicists try to avoid such words as "never" and "always"
  3. Positivism - The whole of situational ethics relies upon the fact that the person freely chooses to believe in agape love as described by Christianity.
  4. Personalism - Whereas the legalist thinks people should work to laws, the situational ethicist believes that laws are for the benefit of the people.

The six fundamental principles (propositions)[edit]

First proposition 
Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all. Fletcher (1963, pg56)
Second proposition 
The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else. Fletcher (1963, pg69)
Third proposition 
Love and Justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else. Fletcher (1963, pg87)
Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating its duties, obligations, opportunities, resources... Justice is love coping with situations where distribution is called for. Fletcher (1963, pg95)
Fourth proposition 
Love wills the neighbour's good, whether we like him or not. Fletcher (1963, pg103)
Fifth proposition 
Only the end justifies the means, nothing else. Actions only acquire moral status as a means to an end; for Fletcher, the end must be the most loving result. When measuring a situation, one must consider the desired end, the means available, the motive for acting and the foreseeable consequences. Fletcher (1963, pg120)
Sixth proposition 
Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. Fletcher (1963, pg134)

Examples[edit]

Fletcher proposed various examples of situations in which the established moral laws might need to be put on hold in order to achieve the greater amount of love. These were based upon real situations.

Himself Might his Quietus Make[edit]

I dropped in on a patient at the hospital who explained that he only had a set time to live. The doctors could give him some pills (that would cost $40 every three days) that would keep him alive for the next three years, but if he didn't take the pills, he’d be dead within six months. Now he was insured for $100,000, double indemnity and that was all the insurance he had. But if he took the pills and lived past next October when the insurance was up for renewal, they were bound to refuse the renewal, and his insurance would be canceled. So he told me that he was thinking that if he didn't take the pills, then his family would get left with some security, and asked my advice on the situation.

Pragmatism, positivism, relativism and personalism are the 4 working principles which mean to be reasonably sure the act you take will work and provide the most loving consequence, accepting Situational Ethics as a matter of faith and not reason, each situation must be relative to love and bring about the most loving result and finally the needs of people come first rather than a set of rules.

Special Bombing Mission No. 13[edit]

When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the plane crew were silent. Captain Lewis uttered six words, "My God, what have we done?" Three days later another one fell on Nagasaki. About 152,000 were killed, many times more were wounded and burned, to die later. The next day Japan sued for peace. When deciding whether to use "the most terrible weapon ever known" the US President appointed an Interim Committee made up of distinguished and responsible people in the government. Most but not all of its military advisors favoured using it. Top-level scientists said they could find no acceptable alternative to using it, but they were opposed by equally able scientists. After lengthy discussions, the committee decided that the lives saved by ending the war swiftly by using this weapon outweighed the lives destroyed by using it and thought that the best course of action.

Christian Cloak and Dagger[edit]

I was reading "Biblical Faith and Social Ethics",[7] Clinton Gardner's book on a shuttle plane to New York. Next to me sat a young woman of about twenty-eight or so, attractive and well turned out in expensive clothes of good taste. She showed some interest in my book, and I asked if she'd like to look at it. "No", she said, "I'd rather talk." What about? "Me." I knew this meant good-bye to the reading. "I have a problem I'm confused about. You might help me to decide," she explained... There was a war going on that her government believed could be stopped by some clever use of espionage and blackmail. However, this meant she had to seduce and sleep with an enemy spy in order to lure him into blackmail. Now this went against her morals, but if it brought the war to an end, saving thousands of lives, would it be worth breaking those standards?

Sacrificial Adultery[edit]

As the Russian armies drove westward to meet the Americans and British at the Elbe, a Soviet patrol picked up a Mrs. Bergmeier foraging food for her three children. Unable even to get word to the children, she was taken off to a POW camp in Ukraine. Her husband had been captured in the Battle of the Bulge and taken to a POW camp in Wales. When he was returned to Berlin, he spent months rounding up his children, although they couldn't find their mother. She more than anything else was needed to reconnect them as a family in that dire situation of hunger, chaos and fear. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Mrs. Bergmeier learned through a sympathetic commandant that her husband and family were trying to keep together and find her. But the rules allowed them to release her to Germany only if she was pregnant, in which case she would be returned as a liability. She turned things over in her mind and finally asked a friendly Volga German camp guard to impregnate her, which he did. Her condition being medically verified, she was sent back to Berlin and to her family. They welcomed her with open arms, even when she told them how she had managed it. And when the child was born, they all loved him because of what they [sic] had done for them. After the christening, they met up with their local pastor and discussed the morality of the situation.

These situations were criticised by many as being quite extreme, although Joseph Fletcher agreed that they were so, because in normal cases, the general guidelines should be applied and it is only in extreme cases that exceptions would need to be made.

Biblical links[edit]

As a priest, Joseph Fletcher claimed situational ethics to be a true set of Christian morals that tie in with Biblical teaching. However, not all people agree with him on this, so here are some passages of relevant biblical scripture (from the New International Version), and it is left to the reader as to whether the teachings of situational ethics are Biblical or not.

"One of...[the Pharisees], an expert in the law, tested Him with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: ''Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments.'"
(Matthew 22:35-40)

"The Law by itself was unable to save anyone since no one was capable of its fulfillment. Thus the Law served (initially) only to increase sin since it posed many rules available to be broken. However, it was through the Law (rather than by the Law) that the possibility of salvation would come. One man, came and fulfilled the Law. This righteousness was imputed to some through faith, which altered their eternal destiny. Now sure of a right relationship with God, and with knowledge of God's eternal promise, they were free to enter into a genuinely loving relationship with God, and they love God by loving others."[citation needed]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Situation ethics", The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (2000)
  2. ^ Mark E. Graham, Josef Fuchs on Natural Law, Georgetown University Press, 2002. P. 8
  3. ^ Porter, Burton Frederick (2001). The Good Life: Alternatives in Ethics. p. 211. 
  4. ^ a b c d Fletcher, Joseph (1997). Situation ethics: The new morality. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664257613. 
  5. ^ Tillich, Systematic Theology, v. 1, p. 152
  6. ^ Hoose, 1987
  7. ^ theologytoday.ptsem.edu

External links[edit]