strengths and weaknesses of situation ethics

strength and counter - relativism

relativist - situation ethics is flexible, allowing individualised responses to different contexts. rules are useful but there should be exceptions. sometimes you should push aside your principles and do the right thing. Augustine believed divine grace and love enable people to make moral decisions, which supports the approach of agape

counter - its impossible to say what you’re supposed to do. how do you work out what the most loving thing is, if it changes from situation to situation?

counter counter - rationality should still play a part in working out what the most loving thing is, but love shouldn’t be limited to cold, hard reason like natural law. rationality should not motivate our actions because it is dispassionate. the most loving thing should always focus on the person/people and the outcome. if you follow the principle of agape it isn’t actually that hard to decipher the correct thing to do. single rule of agape should motivate all actions.

strength and counter - situationist

strength - situation ethics is a great way for the church to reconcile strict rules in the bible with jesus’ approach. jesus criticised the pharisees for being legalistic. on the other hand, it would be wrong to get rid of all rules (antinomianism). situation ethics is midway between the two, allowing allowing christian’s to consult the bible and church traditions, but put this aside if love demands it, just as jesus did

counter - as the individual acts independently, the church has no place in moral decision making, the situationist approach ignores thousands of years of church traditions, throwing away the wisdom of the greatest teachers. wise men have debated important topics for generations, and yet the individual can make a more informed decision in the spur of the moment?

counter counter - jesus himself was critical of legalism and following strict rules. they didn’t focus on the major ideas and instead focused on minor issues which didn’t solve the root of the problem. it is hypocritical to claim to follow God, yet not follow major duties like faithfulness, mercy and justice. jesus himself did not follow the rules, for example he broke sabbath laws to heal people. he said “i came to fulfill the law, not do away with it”. christianity is based off of jesus’s teachings so we should aspire to live like him, and the way he lived was by doing the most loving thing. further, robinson says jesus’ moral precepts are not supposed to be understood legalistically (eg sermon on the mount) and are not legislation. instead, they are illustrations of what love may require of anyone. he also says that jesus knows that if we have the heart of the matter in us, love will find the way in every situation as it has its own moral compass.

strength and counter - social justice

strength - agape motivates people to change things for the better, to get rid of discrimination, help those who are poor etc. change is needed, and a system of rules doesn’t help bring about change

counter - justice requires us to all follow the law, for example in natural law one of the primary precepts is to live in an ordered society. situation ethics allows us to treat people differently instead of equally, break the rules, lie and steal in individual circumstances, and this is not fair

counter counter - following the law constantly will not work especially when new social issues arise. for example, normally you would follow rules and not nuke another country, because it does not follow the primary precept of do not kill. however, in the case of ww2, it was the most suitable thing to drop the atomic bombs, because otherwise the war may not have ended for a very long time and potentially more lives would be lost. this would also not be fair (joseph fletcher, situation ethics)

• 
  

-