william barclay + situation ethics

p1: “when we talk about ethics, we mostly mean a series of rules and laws and principles by which we act which tells us what to do

• common sense holds that ethics is a system of rules

• whether ethics is a system of rules is the crux of this debate between barclay and fletcher; fletcher denies it + barclay seeks to defend it

• barlcay thinks this view is just common sense

• if so, the burden of proof is on fletcher to refute it

• argues that ethics refers to deontological principles which outlines morality

• he argues that these principles make things less complicated and make life easier; ultimately, people like rules

p2: “but in 1966, an american professor called joseph fletcher wrote a book called situation ethics, which has proved to be one of the most influential books written in this century”

• this book was written with a backdrop of sexual revolution, and a time of change

• fletchers basic principle is relativism; nothing is intrinsically good or intrinsically bad, just ‘descriptions of things in different circumstances’

• ultimately, no action is good or bad in and of itself, as they are all predicates

• even the most ‘evil’ actions can be good given the right circumstances, and vice versa

• Goodness” and “badness” are predicated (i.e. said) of actions in particular contexts, but are not properties of actions themselves.

• therefore, fletcher argues that decision making must be consequentialist, as we have to act on a particular situation with an ‘act of judgement’, not prefabricated decisions

p3: it has to be noted that the situation ethics man does not as it were start from nothing.

• a situationist can and does use prior knowledge/ decisions as rules

• fletcher thinks that moral rules do provide useful generalisations about right and wrong (e.g ‘stealing is wrong’ tells us stealing is not typically a loving thing to do

• HOWEVER, he refuses to say that ‘any principle is absolutely binding’, i.e all rules are only a rule of thumb, adopting a relativist approach, and that blindly following rules is restrictive

p4: we have got to qualify all this; for to the situationist there is one thing and one thing only that is absolutely, always and universally good- and that one thing is love

• for fletcher, love is the only moral absolute

• love always trumps obedience to the law

• love is always good

p5: only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love: nothing else

• introduces idea of positivism

p6: quite clearly we will have to be sure of just what love is.

• fletcher is not talking about romantic love, but agape love

• agape is ‘unconquerable goodwill’, meaning that it is a soul guiding purpose, which is intrinsic not instrumental

• it is logical attitude, rather than a feeling

p7: this is all important, because if we talk about this kind of love, it means that we can love the person we don’t like

• agape love is a deliberate and logical attitude directed towards others, not a feeling of the heart

• falling in love is irrational, and not a choice one makes

• agape love is an active, logical decision one makes in regard to their attitude towards others

• agape involves using your head and putting your emotions to one side

p9: suppose, for instance, a house catches fire and in it there is a baby and the original of the mona lisa; which do you save the baby or the priceless and irreplaceable picture?

• barclay argues that situation ethics is informative in some cases

• saving the baby, not the painting is clearly the loving thing to do

• in this case, situation ethics gives us clear moral direction

p10: But think of this one- suppose in the burning house there is your aged father…

• barclay argues that in some scenarios, sitch ethics is uninformative

• on the one hand, choosing your father over a hypothetical group of patients seems like the most loving thing to do

• on the other, it may be most loving to put your selfish interests aside for the sake of the many

• therefore, situation ethics gives us no clear moral direction in this case

p11: on the wilderness trail, daniel boone’s trail westward through cumberland gap to kentucky, many families..

• situationism gives no clear guidance in the ‘wilderness trail scenario’

• neither action conforms with traditional rules of good, and sitch ethics asks us to pick which action is best for ‘sure’ without any r

p12: the situationist is always confronting us with decisions

• sitch ethics always confronts us with decisions

• the lack of absolutism means that decision making is dependent on the context of each situation

• one may only break the rules for agape love