Application: Situational Ethics

Theft

There is a lack of clear guidance as it depends on the situation, and there are different answers every time
- Pragmatic, may work in some situations for the most loving outcome eg, feeding a starving family, but it doesn't work for the victim of the stealing
- 'Love decides there and then' completely depends on the situation and what the most loving thing is
- love and justice are the same. it’s hard to claim stealing is just and loving unless in extreme cases

Lying

- depends on the situation
- 1. Female, British spies in Germany left behind to conceal they had broken the code. This is PRAGMATIC, ultimately serving love to protect others
- 2. Nurses lie to schizophrenic patients to keep them calm. This is a demonstration of AGAPE. It's also PERSONALIST, minimising distress
- 'love is the only norm' if the outcome is loving then lying can be permitted

Abortion

Captial Punishment

- Agape may not allow it as it doesn't allow offenders to reform. Jesus also loved sinners and died for them/us, unconditional no matter what
- personalist, what is best for the offender/offender's family or what is best for victim/victim's family. Who is prioritised?
- relativist, it is relative to the case, pre-meditated murder is different to manslaughter
- 'love is the only norm' disregard the law and capital punishment, only love should be considered, not capital punishment
- 'love is not liking' you don't have to like a person, just love them as a fellow human, not giving capital punishment

Embryo Research

- Fletcher believed personhood was what confirmed rights as it has a self awareness. The embryo is only a potential person so embryo research is not a concern
- 'man is a maker and a selector and a designer, and the more rationally contrived and deliberate anything is, the more human it is'

Cloning

- Therapeutic cloning could be justified as it could lead to positive outcomes such as children and cures for illnesses, so it is agape. An embryo doesn't qualify for personhood, so it has no awareness.
- 'love justifies the means' it could help cure diseases and illnesses
- 'love is the only norm' if it's the loving thing to do
- Fletcher wasn't against reproductive cloning if it was for the good of humanity

Designer Babies

- Fletcher agrees with designer babies to avoid genetic diseases; 'control of a child's sex by cloning to avoid any one of 50 sex linked genetic diseases... might be justifiable'
- 'Love justifies the means' it could rid of genetic diseases
- an agapeic response as it could lead to good outcomes

Eating animals and Intensive farming

- personalist, is it better for people to have meat in their diet and it be cheaper?
- pragmatism, its more pragmatic to develop technology eg. Lab-grown meat than intensively farming
- if agape is towards humans, it may be permitted but if the agape is towards animals, its not loving
- 'love justifies the means' if starving people require the food, it may be the most loving thing to do
- 'love is the only norm' love is the only rule regarding both humans and animals BUT who

Use of Animals in Scientific Proceedures

- Fletcher, himself, was involved in bio-ethics and held the belief it was acceptable
- pragmatic, if it works for human welfare, its good and loving
- relativist, its relative to the situation, only do it for some cases like diseases, not cosmetics
- 'love justifies its means' 1 animal suffers for many human lives
- 'love is the only nom' who is the recipient of the love though, animals or humans?
- agape; loving to find cures, not loving to make animals suffer

Blood Sports

- its not agape to be cruel to animals
- relativist, Bull fighting is cruel and has no loving outcome but hunting for food is less cruel than factory farming
- 'love is the only norm' the only rule to follow is love and using animals for entertainment is not loving
- ''love justifies the means' allowing hunting to help feed people may be loving enough to outweigh killing

Animals as a Source of Organ Transplant

- Fletcher's involvement in bio-ethics would support this
- personalist, its a person centred idea so if a person benefits, its acceptable
- 'love justifies he means' if it saves lives, it doesn't matter where its come from
- 'love is the only norm' if the outcome is loving, its acceptable regardless of scientific, ethical or social laws BUT it's not loving just to kill for our benefit