Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Situation Ethics Revision (Definitions (Legalism ~ too many rules -…
Situation Ethics Revision
Definitions
Legalism
~ too many rules - Religious ethics such as natural law.
Antinomianism
~ not enough rules - you decide what is right and wrong.
Agape love
~ unconditional love for your neighbour - selfless and not always reciprocated - based on Jesus' summary of the laws.
Teleological
~ making moral decisions based on the outcome/consequences of the action.
Situationism
~ 'do the most loving thing in each situation' - in the middle of traditional (religious) and modern ethics.
Fletcher's ideas
4 Working Principals
Pragmatism
~ its got to work in real life, and explores how moral views might play out in real life situations.
Relativism
~ it has no fixed, absolute truths, as everything is dependant on love.
Positivism
~ it doesn't look at the world for moral truths (like natural law), but it uses positive reason and faith in God.
Personalism
~ its got to focus on the welfare of the people involved.
6 Propositions
'Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all'
~ love is the only thing truly good in itself, so we must use it when making moral decisions.
'Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively'
~ you decide what the most loving thing to do is in each situation, as each situation is different, and so should be treated as so.
'The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else'
~ we must always follow love, when law and love conflict.
'Only the end justifies the means; nothing else'
~ any loving outcome justifies the action - teleological.
'Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else'
~ we must rationally apply love to situations, working out who will benefit most.
'Love will the neighbour's good whether we like him or not'
~ We must help out our neighbour whether or not you like one another, and it may not be reciprocated.
Assessing Situation Ethics
Strengths
Its right in saying that legalistic approaches are too strict
~ in some situations it would be cruel to apply rules. Situation ethics recognises that every situation is different, and so needs to be treated as so. This means that it is more flexible and shows compassion to people put into difficult situations.
Agape love is a good principle
~ the idea that we should do the most loving thing to those around us, and selflessly and conditionally help others saves us from our own personal bias. This means that society can become a better and more loving place.
It is centred around people
~ it focuses on the welfare of people and concludes that the morally right thing to do is what will benefit the people involved most, and what shows the most love. This means that more people will feel happy because it is centred around them.
Gives humans moral responsibility for their actions
~ it does not give rules, but allows people to make their own decisions about what the most loving thing to do is. This means that...........
It enables us to answer difficult moral dilemmas
~ legalistic ethical theories will sometimes have contrasting rules like telling the truth and saving a life (mad axeman wants to kill Shawn Mendes and doesn't know he's in the room hiding) but situation ethics gives us only one rule to follow - love. This means that it is easy to apply to our lives and gives solutions to moral dilemmas.
Weaknesses
It difficult to know where one situation ends and the next begins
~ we may and attempt to solve the current situation, which leads to a chain of unexpected consequences that create more difficult situations. This means that our actions of trying to do the most loving thing, might lead to bad situations to occur later on.
Some Christians don't agree with Fletchers account of Jesus' teachings
~ Fletcher's basis for using love to solve moral dilemmas is the fact that Jesus summarised the laws into just two: 'love the Lord your father' and 'love your neighbour.' Some Christians say that there is a lot more to Jesus' teachings than just love - he talks about money and hell more. This means that his reason for making love the centre of his ethical theory is misguided.
Agape love is vague
~ what agape love is and how to apply it to situations is confusing and vague, as different people will have different ideas of love, for example some may say they like someone's dress even though they do not to save their feelings, but others may prefer not to lie. This means that it is difficult for people to apply the concept of agape love to situations, and people will find it hard to show unconditional love to everyone.
It is individualistic
~ it is based on the welfare of the people involved as one of its 4 working principals is personalism. This isn't necessarily bad but this idea makes it very difficult for society as a whole to adopt situation ethics, because everyone has different opinions on love and how to make the most loving outcome come about.
It requires a prediction of the future
~ the morality of am action is based on the outcome of it. This means that people may accidently choose to do something that doesn't lead to a loving action, even though they intended it to. This means that no one can guarantee that their action will maximise love.
It has no clear boundaries
~ it could permit horrifying situations. For example it could allow child torture in the attempt of making a terrorist reveal the location of a bomb he has planted in a public place so that they could find it and disarm it, meaning that all those lives are saved. This could be seen as the most loving outcome but the child is innocent and shouldn't be used cruelly to persuade a terrorist.