Can SItuation Ethics be seen as a good theory to follow?

Situation ethics was devised by Joseph Fletcher and is right or wrong actions depending on the situation. In situation ethics there are no universal moral rules or rights because the outcome of the action depends on the situation. It states that sometimes other moral principles can be set aside in certain situations if the idea of love is best served. Paul Tillich (a famous philosopher) said “Love is the ultimate law” this analogy is based on agape love meaning unconditional and the scholar Fletcher believed that by forming an ethical system based on ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ as this was taught by Jesus in the bible . Situational ethics is a teleological theory because it is concerned with outcome or consequences of the action being carried out. Sometimes in situation ethics the end can justify the mean but this depends on whether the situation is intrinsically bad. Fletcher believed that moral decisions made should be based on the quote ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ and that the theory / analogy does not only apply to religious people as every consequence can be good or bad. This type of ethics also requires the individual to genuinely care and want to do good and therefore simple rationality isn’t the human way to go. It also takes into account the overriding superiority of the actual human entity rather than the rules acting as the governing authority. The following are the working principles of situation ethics.

A strength of situation ethics is that is a teleological argument and this  means that the action can change according to the situation the person has been put in rather that being the same every time because teleological refers to the idea of relative morality. Fletcher also argues that the consequences are the most important element of the action because it can affect people/ the person. The action itself can be seen as unimportant as long as it brings the most loving outcome.

Situation Ethics put’s people before rules and this follows the working principle, Personalism. As Jesus said, ‘Sabbath was made for man not man for Sabbath’ meaning that the Sabbath day should be a time for man rather than just to follow strict rules. This is important as it prevents people being forced into following rules. Also the fact that people come first is something that most people would agree with and find preferential. This gives an override option for situations where rules do not seem appropriate. An example of this can be rape; a girl has been forced into sexual activity against her will. Fletcher would argue that abortion can be seen as the most loving thing for the girl. The family and the girl may feel it is the right thing to do even though they believe abortion is wrong. However, this can cause issues.

Situation ethics is relevant to both secular and religious beliefs. Fletcher based the theory on Jesus’ teachings, although the ethic requires no grounded belief in God.  The theory follows the fundamental principle of ‘love thy neighbour’ and many of the parables which demonstrate agape, preached by Jesus, such as the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan’. It can also be said that Jesus taught the same flexible morality, ‘man was made for Sabbath, not Sabbath for man’.

Another strength of Situation Ethics, particularly in the ever-changing 21^st century, is that it is current and up to date because it is flexible and shows concern with producing the most loving outcome. Advancements have been made in medical science and are still being made for example, procedures such as stem cell research and genetic engineering may offer dilemmas for religious believers; they may agree that the foetuses have sanctity of life, and shouldn’t be used even if it helps people. However, Situation Ethics would say that it is acceptable, as long as it produces a loving outcome, helping and saving people. Where elements of Natural Law and other strict laws in religion may not directly address current issues, leaving decision making difficult, Situation Ethics stays relevant as it can always be applied to an individual case, always based on the outcome of agape love.

Situation ethics can be seen as independent, and this means  that you can make your own choices and do not have to restrict yourself to rules laid down by religious institutions which may be outdated and unsuited to today’s society and this type of decisions occur in everyday life.  This is good as it means that people do not have to feel pressured to make certain decisions which they may not want to and do not feel pressured to follow Biblical teachings, and they can decide what is best according to the idea of agape love (love for humanity) and this means ensuring the best outcome according to the situation. Situation ethics also avoids conflict of duty ass one experiences in absolutist systems. Where moral rules collide, situation ethics gives a way of resolving the conflict and this is Love.

A weakness of situation ethics is that you cannot always predict the long term consequences of actions. Therefore an action may have good intentions but it may still result in a bad outcome and, this can stop people from doing good as they fear the outcome. For example, Nina Rosenstand (a famous philosopher) gives the example of the neighbour who decided to turn on the heating in his friend’s house so it would be warm when he returned from holiday, accidentally set the house on fire. The neighbour’s intentions could be seen as good and therefore driven by love, but it failed to produce a loving outcome. This shows a slaw in situation ethics as the consequences of the actions can be difficult to predict. Also situation ethics can be seen as unsuitable for everyone because atheists and those of other faiths might not want to follow the example of Jesus.

A major weakness to Situation Ethics was the Church and its criticisms. The Church believed that strict rules like the Ten Commandments had been in place for so long that there was no need now to change them, as they contained wisdom which had been in place for thousands of years. These rules are necessary to keep order in the world, as many would argue that without rules we would descend into moral chaos. Some people in the religious sector criticised situation Ethics as they believe human beings couldn’t act without our emotions guiding our actions. Furthermore, they say that Situation Ethics isolates the Church because it allows people to make decisions independently, rather than turning to the Church for help.

Situation ethics is concerned with acting for the greatest amount of love and we could say that it will always be acting for good. However, it fails to take into account each person’s individual subjective nature. For example, one person may consider acting to save the life of a loved one to be the most loving thing, whereas another may think that euthanasia could be acting for the greatest love. This could also have the effect of justifying ‘crimes’ which one person may consider to be loving, but another might consider to be wrong  and this can be seen in one of the fundamental principles; Love is the only rule. The problem with this is that it allows the individual to do anything in the name of love – there are no rules to say that someone has done the wrong thing. each person can make a different decision in the same  circumstances to someone else and this shows that there is a big flaw in the ethical ideology of Situation ethics, showing it is not a practical ethic for today’s society.

Situation ethics is a good theory because it can be seen as universal, as it is a non-christian view. However, situation ethics allows people to abuse the idea of love. An alternative to situation ethics is Bernard Hoose’s proportionalism. He believed that situation ethics failed by not having any rules apart from acting out of love. Hoose’s combined situation ethics with natural law. This means it is not deontological in nature but it gives guidance to what to do in certain situations therefore, it does not leave each person as a moral decision maker that is considered to be isolated.

 

EO.