Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Situation Ethics (The 6 Propositions of Situationism ('Only one…
Situation Ethics
The 4 Working Principals of Situationism
Personalism
~
People should be at the centre of the theory.
Everything is related to the good of the people involved. 'Love is of people, by people, and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved.' This is the view that if we are to maximise love we need to consider the person in a situation
Positivism
~
It must put faith before reasoning.
We cannot look at the world and discover moral rules, as natural law does. We must discover our values by having faith in God and positively reasoning what the right thing to do is based on this situation.
Pragmatism
~
the action must work in real life
For a course of action to be right, it has to be practical - it must work. Fletcher is attracted to moral views that do not try to work out the abstract, but instead explores how moral views might play out in real life situations. Theoretical solutions are not an option. They must work in real life.
Relativism
~
There should be no fixed rules.
This means that rules don’t always apply, they depend on the situation. As situations vary, the consequences will too, meaning that the right thing to do must change accordingly. Love is the why of our action but the how is dependent on the circumstance. Right and wrong is related to the situation.
The 6 Propositions of Situationism
'Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all'
~ Some things are intrinsically good - only love is truly good in itself. Other things are extrinsically good - walking is good because we want to be healthy. They are only good because they serve some end goal.
'
The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else'
~ In the New Testament Jesus frequently puts the principal of love above the laws of the Old Testament, such as when he healed someone on the Sabbath. When love and law conflict, we must always follow love. Fletcher reminds us that Jesus summed up the the entire law as 'love God' and 'love your neighbour.'
'Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.'
~ Justice is Christian love being applied rationally. Fletcher says this is not sentimental love, but is calculated by measuring who benefits the most. There can be no love without justice.
'Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.
~ No decision can be taken before considering the facts of the situation. In each situation, you decide there and then what the most loving thing to do is.
'Only the end justifies the means; nothing else.'
~ Fletcher is not suggesting that any end is justified by the means, but that any loving end is justified by the means. If an action causes harm, it is wrong; if good comes of it, it is right.
'Love wills the neighbor’s good whether we like him or not.'
~ love is an attitude and not a feeling, as we are dealing with agape and not eros. Agape love is selfless, not sentimental, and not always reciprocated. Our neighbour is anyone and everyone that we come across in our lives. Fletcher notes that Jesus taught that this love must also be extended to our enemies - The Good Samaritan.
Strengths of Situation Ethics
It is right in assuming that legalistic approaches to ethics brings an inflexibility to situations
~ in some circumstances, it would be cruel and unfair to apply rules. Situation ethics takes circumstances and situations into account, bringing a much needed flexibility to ethics.
It enables us to answer difficult moral dilemmas
~ when we have conflicting rules (like telling the truth and saving a life), it gives us one principle to follow - love. This helps us to decide which decision will result in the outcome, that maximises the most love.
Agape love is a good principal
~ the demand that we whatever is the most loving thing for those around us whether we like them or not saves us from our own personal bias. Unconditional love is a good thing for society, as it would make it a nicer place to live.
It is person centred
~ it starts with the question of what will benefit the people involved, whereas legalistic systems such as Natural Law focuses on obedience to rules. We base our decisions on what will work for the people.
It gives humans the moral responsibility for their decisions and actions
~ it does not give us rules, but makes us make out own decisions on what is the most loving thing to do. We must reason ourselves, what will be the most loving thing to do.
(CA: too much responsibility for some)
Weaknesses of Situation Ethics
The concept of agape and how we might apply it is vague
~ people will have different opinions on what might be the most loving thing to do, in different situations. For example some may think the most loving thing to do is tell someone you like their dress even though you do not, to save form hurting their feeling. However others might say the most loving thing to do is tell them the truth, to save them from embarrassment and humiliation.
It is difficult to know where one situation ends and the other starts
~ we may resolve the immediate situation but set off an unexpected chain of events that do not lead to the most loving outcome. Every action always has an abundance of unexpected consequences, How far into the future are we required to calculate the outcome? What exactly are we morally responsible for? When do we stop thinking ahead?
It has no clear and absolute boundaries
~ this idea could permit horrifying events to occur. For example it could allow child torture where the most loving outcome could be achieved. It could be used to find the location of a bomb from the terrorist, who's child is being tortures, therefore saving many people who would've been killed.
It is individualistic
~ it involves individuals deciding what the most loving thing to do based on specific circumstances. This means that it could be difficult for this to be applied across society, as everyone has different opinions, and people may not have the sufficient expertise to reason on the best outcome.
Some Christians don't agree with Fletcher's account of Jesus
~ some churches and Christians reject his view, because he conflates (combine two or more sets ideas into one) Jesus rejection of the social rules and practices of the time, with moral rules. They believe that Jesus was the fulfilment of moral laws.