Situation ethics.

What does Fletcher reject and propose as the foundation of Situation Ethics?

-Fletcher rejects the traditional Christian approach to ethics which he calls ‘legalism’ – basing ethics on strict rules that have to always be followed.

-Fletcher rejects this because it fails to take the situation into account.

-Fletcher also rejects antinomianism – the view that there are no rules at all – Fletcher rejects this as it leads to moral chaos.

-Fletcher thinks ‘situationism’ is the correct middle ground between these extremes.

-It focuses on not rules but a guiding principle that is applied to all situations – agape.

-Agape means Christian love – selfless love of your neighbour.

-So, Fletcher’s ethics says that an action is good or bad depending on whether it has a loving outcome.

-Agape is the foundational moral principle.

-Fletcher then introduced some further principles, to do with how we make moral decisions aimed at maximising agape.

What are Fletcher’s four working principles and how do they apply to moral decisions?

-Fletcher elaborated on the application of agape to moral decision making with his ‘four working principles’. Following them ensures that we are acting towards the moral principle of agape.

-Pragmatism – must take the situation into account.

-Personalism – people are more important than rules.

-Positivism – putting agape at the centre of ethics must be taken on faith.

-Relativism – an action is only right or wrong depending on whether it has a loving outcome – relative to agape.

-E.g. Fletcher gave an illustration, where a family is hiding from bandits and their baby starts crying. If they are all discovered, they will all be killed. Fletcher says it might be the loving thing to kill their own baby.

-This is quite an extreme action. But, the working principles would focus us on doing what is loving, even if that’s killing the baby, because that would:

-Take the situation into account, since everyone else would die if we didn’t (pragmatism).

-Put people (those saved) above rules like don’t kill (personalism).

-Ensure our faith is in agape as the centre of ethics (positivism).

-Show that we are only thinking of right and wrong in terms of agape, we’re not considering anything else (relativism).

Fletcher thought that to properly follow Agape, we had to accept six fundamental principles. The four working principles are things we have to act on, whereas these are beliefs we have to accept. If we reject any of these principles, we won’t manage to act on agape.

What are the key characteristics of love in Situation Ethics according to Fletcher?

-Love is:

-The only intrinsic good,

-The only thing that is good in itself – all other things are good insofar as they lead to love (e.g. helping others or giving to charity might be good – but not intrinsically – only insofar as it leads to love),

-The ruling norm of Christian moral decision-making, nothing else (moral decisions should only be based on what has a loving outcome),

-The same as justice – since justice is just love distributed.
Some would say justice is important as well as love, but Fletcher argues that it’s fine for him to focus only on love, since justice technically is just the distribution of love.

-Wills the neighbour’s good whether we like them or not.
We must do the loving thing for our neighbour, regardless of how we feel about them.

How does Fletcher connect love with means, decision-making, and conscience in Situation Ethics?

-Love is:

-What justifies the means.
The means is the action we use to bring about the end. Fletcher is saying as long as the outcome is loving, then the means – the action – is justified, no matter what it is.

-What decides there and then.
We often have to make quick decisions in time-sensitive conditions during moral action. We simply have to do our best to figure out what action will have a loving outcome there and then in the situation we are faced with. You can’t just do nothing – you must do what you think will have a loving outcome.

-Conscience: Fletcher doesn’t think conscience is a ‘noun’, which indicates that he rejects Aquinas’ natural law view of the conscience.

-Fletcher says it is not a thing, not a set moral compass with pre-written rules or precepts that tells you what is good or bad.

-Conscience is a verb – the process of figuring out what the loving thing to do is in a situation.

-So conscience is more like a mental faculty which allows us to do/figure something out, rather than a preset moral compass like Aquinas thinks.

What is William Barclay’s argument against the level of autonomy in Situation Ethics?

-William Barclay criticises situation ethics, arguing it gives people a dangerous amount of autonomy because people are not saints.

-Mankind has not yet come of age and still needs the protection of strict laws.

-If granted freedom to do what they want, they won’t choose the loving thing – they will choose the selfish or cruel thing to do.

-Barclay is making the classic argument that power corrupts.

How does J.A.T. Robinson defend the autonomy granted by Situation Ethics?

-J. A. T. Robinson defends situation ethics, claiming that humanity has ‘come of age’ (influenced by Bonhoeffer's concept of the ‘world come of age’).

-This means that humanity has become more mature since medieval times.

-In the past, people were less educated and self-controlling. They needed fixed, clear rules to follow.

-However, now people are more civilised and can be trusted to think for themselves more.

-Giving them more autonomy (a person’s ability to act on his or her own values and interests) will increase love without risking the stability of society.

Is Robinson’s defence successful, or does Barclay’s concern still stand?

-Robinson’s defence is unsuccessful against Barclay, because there is much evidence in human culture about the corrupting influence of power.

-People are more civilised, but only because of the careful system of law built around them to make being civilised their best interest.

-When we take away laws, people behave terribly. This can be seen during failed states when governments collapse, or when police go on strike as seen in Canada in 1969.

-Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment also shows how power can corrupt people.

-The Lord of the Flies is literature which powerfully represents the decline in civilised behaviour once laws are taken away.

-So, without external supervision of legalistic morality, humans become corrupt.

-Fletcher’s theory would lead to antinomianism if implemented because it is too individualistic and subjective.

What do traditional Christians who follow Martin Luther’s concept of sola scriptura argue about Fletcher’s ethics?

-They argue Fletcher’s theory is not genuine Christian ethics because he ignores most Bible commands, focusing only on Agape.

-The Bible commands, e.g., ‘thou shalt not kill’ (making euthanasia wrong), and ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’.

-Fletcher says killing or adultery can be acceptable if they have a loving outcome.

-Therefore, Fletcher fails by claiming to be Christian but not following the Bible.

How does Fletcher defend his ethics against sola scriptura criticism?

-Fletcher defends his ethics by promoting a liberal view of biblical inspiration.

-He says taking the Bible literally is unscientific and no one lives like a literalist.

-However, interpreting the Bible means interpretations vary and it’s unclear who is right.

-Fletcher chooses to follow the Bible’s foundational theme: love.

Is Fletcher’s defence convincing? Why or why not?

-Fletcher’s defence is unsuccessful because his liberal approach is no better than trying to interpret the Bible literally.

-The Bible’s themes and paradigms are also subject to personal interpretation.

-Fletcher hasn’t solved the interpretation problem, just postponed it.

-Situation ethics thus fails to be a convincing Christian ethics approach and risks sliding into antinomianism due to subjectivity.

What are the main criticisms of situation ethics representing Jesus’ ethics?

-Richard Mouw says it makes no sense to reduce Christian ethics to only one of Jesus’ commands when Jesus made other commands too. We must either accept Jesus as a full moral authority or not.

-Pope Pius XII criticises situation ethics similarly, pointing out Christ stressed following all commandments (Matthew 19:17 & John 14:15). He argues Fletcher is unwittingly attacking Christ.

-Fletcher claims the ends justify the means, but Romans 3:8 condemns consequentialism—doing evil for a ‘good result’.

How does Fletcher defend situation ethics as aligned with Jesus’ ethics?

-Fletcher argues his theory fits Jesus’ ethical approach: Jesus overturned rules (e.g., Moses’ eye for an eye), allowed rule-breaking (e.g., working on the sabbath), and said the greatest commandment was to love your neighbour as yourself.

-If one commandment is greater, it should take priority and lesser rules can be broken if loving.

-Situation ethics is a reasonable interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on agape as the greatest commandment, implying precedence over others.

Why is Fletcher’s defence unsuccessful?

-If agape is the only commandment that ultimately matters, why did Jesus make others?

-If a commandment is only followed when it accords with agape, then agape is the only necessary command.

-Mouw and Pius XII’s view is more coherent.

-It’s more logical that ‘greatest’ meant the commandment relevant to the most situations, not the only one to follow.

-Fletcher has not justified that Jesus would support situation ethics today.

What is the problem with love as a basis for ethics?

-Love is subjective – everyone has their own view of what is loving.

-It is therefore too unstable a basis for ethics.

-Even some Nazis thought they were doing a loving thing.

How does Fletcher respond to the subjectivity issue?

-Love might be subjective – but Fletcher focuses on Agape, which is more than just love.

-Agape is Christian selfless love of your neighbour.

-Jesus was very clear that everyone is your neighbour.

-The Nazis were not treating everyone like their neighbour – they were not acting based on agape.

-So, agape is clearly not subjective like love in general is.

Why is Fletcher’s defence still seen as unsuccessful?

-C. Hitchens points out agape is still subjective. Loving your neighbour as yourself is only as good if the way you love yourself is good.

-Others might not want to be loved in the way you love yourself.

-The critique: the way a person loves themselves is subjective and therefore so is agape.

-Example: A Nazi might genuinely want to die if they found out they were Jewish. That’s their way of ‘loving themselves’.