Introduction to Situation Ethics
Joseph Fletcher was an American professor who came across his theory during the 1960's. He thought that 'The morality of an action depends on the situation. Fletcher believed that there was three ways of choosing a moral decision. These were called Antinomian Ethics, Legalistic Ethics and Situation Ethics. However, Fletcher has criticisms towards Antinomian and Legalistic Ethics.
Antinomian and Legalistic Ethics
Antinomian Ethics is defined as against law. it does not use an ethical system when choosing moral decisions. The decision is based on complete spontaneity. Joseph Fletcher is critical of this decision due to the lack of law and order.
Legalism is defined as an ethical theory according to which the moral qualities of good and evil, right and wrong are determined by legal rules which are always applicable in all places and circumstances. Although Legalistic Ethics is the opposite to Antinomian Ethics it is still criticised.
Legalism is defined as an ethical theory according to which the moral qualities of good and evil, right and wrong are determined by legal rules which are always applicable in all places and circumstances. Although Legalistic Ethics is the opposite to Antinomian Ethics it is still criticised.
Situation Ethics
Fletcher felt that Situation Ethics was the best way of making moral decisions. It is followed by the rule of Agape which is a Christian word translating as love. This ethical system is based on six fundamentals;
1)Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love and nothing else.
2)The ultimate norm of Christian decisions is love and nothing else.
3)Only the end justifies the means and nothing else.
4)Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed.
5)Love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like him or not.
6)Decisions ought to be made situationally, not prescriptively.
Fletcher also divided his ethical theory into four presumptions. These were;
1)Pragmatism
2)Personalism
3)Relativism
4)Positivism
1)Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love and nothing else.
2)The ultimate norm of Christian decisions is love and nothing else.
3)Only the end justifies the means and nothing else.
4)Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed.
5)Love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like him or not.
6)Decisions ought to be made situationally, not prescriptively.
Fletcher also divided his ethical theory into four presumptions. These were;
1)Pragmatism
2)Personalism
3)Relativism
4)Positivism
Positives and Negatives of Situation Ethics
Situation Ethics has very many strengths as it allows exceptions and is flexible. The involvement of Agape (love) makes people motivated to do good deeds. Furthermore, the people who do not agree with the law or no longer have faith in it are free from having to follow established authorities. However, there are many weaknesses to this Ethic . The definition of love is not made explicit. It is pretty vague and can be interpreted in many ways. To use it to determine someones life is unjustified. The ethic has a lack of consistency and may approve an act of 'evil.' There are also Christian arguments towards this situation. People are not angels and their greed will make Situation Ethics an unrealistic ideal. It goes against Church Authority. For thousands of years, the Christian people have been following the rules and traditions of some of the holiest people who have ever lived. To forget about this would be unthinkable.
Joseph Fletcher's view on The Death Penalty
Doing the most loving thing, it would be assumed that Fletcher is against the Death Penalty. However, if someone is committing dangerous crimes,(hurting others) it would be more beneficial that the person is killed. Arguing that Fletcher is against the Death Penalty, it could be assumed that it was more loving to save the murderer as it was fate that the others would be injured.
Conclusion
Despite its many weaknesses, Situation Ethics can sometimes be quite useful in making moral decisions. Fletcher wouldn't be able to have one view on the Death Penalty as his presumptions and fundamentals will not all work in every situation which means he will only agree to the Death Penalty in some cases. This also questions the reliability of his ethic.