The Green Mile

Death Row guards at a penitentiary, in the 1930's, have a moral dilemma with their job when they discover one of their prisoners, a convicted murderer, has a special gift...

The Green Mile, (1999) tells the story of various prisoners on death row; told from the perspective of an elderly man looking back on his times as a prison officer in the 1930’s. It is hard to understand why this film can be seen as displaying miracles, however once the audience come into contact with inmate John Coffey, the story soon unravels and bewilders all.

A miracle is commonly known as an event which breaks the laws of science, therefore many believe the only explanation behind such events is God. This is shown in the modern day with the prisoner John Coffey, who is an example that people are not always what they seem.

In a Louisiana nursing home in 1999, Paul Edgecomb (the elderly ex prison guard) begins to cry while watching the 1935 film 'Top Hat'. His elderly friend Elaine shows concern for him, and Paul tells her that the film reminded him of when he was a prison officer in charge of death row inmates at Cold Mountain Penitentiary during the summer of 1935. The scene shifts to 1935, where Paul works with fellow guards Brutus "Brutal" Howell, Harry Terwilliger, and Dean Stanton.

The brutal prison guards feel they are justified in their actions towards the inmates, displaying the hate they have for them for committing such atrocious crimes. However, one inmate is different from the rest. The audience certainly get the wrong impression of John Coffey at a first glance; a giant black man convicted of raping and killing two young white girls as he arrives on death row. However, he is shy, soft-spoken, and emotional, telling the prison officers that he must sleep with the light on as he is afraid of the dark.

It is soon discovered that John has amazing powers, first by strangely healing the prison guards urinary track infection, then continuing to resuscitate one of the inmates’ pet mouse, whom he cannot live without. The prison guards then realise John’s amazing gift and sneak him out of the prison to heal one of their friends’ wife who was terminally ill, which he does. So why would a man who performs such miracles be responsible for the cruel and heartless death of two young girls? After all, although John Coffey seems like a gentle giant who performs these amazing miracles to save others, he is on death row for murder. The audience’s suspicions that John may not be guilty of such a crime are confirmed with the introduction of, ‘Wild Bill’ a violent psychopathic prisoner. The moment in which John’s arm is seized by Bill, John senses that it is him who committed this crime.

As John took the illness away from the terminally ill wife, he gives this illness to ‘Wild Bill’, stating that he is punishing him himself for what he had done. The prison officer Paul then interrogates John, as it is thought that he has believed in his innocence all along. John takes Pauls hand to show him what really happened, as he gives Paul a part of himself.

The ultimate twist in the film is that John is innocent. He was found lying next to the girls’ bodies, clutching them tightly and crying; not because he killed them, but because he was trying to use his powers to save their lives after finding their bodies abandoned, however it was too late to save them.

Paul asks John what he should do; if he should open the door and let John walk away. John tells him that there is too much pain in the world, to which he is sensitive, and says he is "rightly tired of the pain" and is ready to rest. For his last request on the night before his execution, John watches the film Top Hat. When John is put in the electric chair, he asks Paul not to put the traditional black hood over his head because he is afraid of the dark. Paul agrees, shakes his hand, and John is executed.

One aspect of John’s amazing powers is that he can naturally live forever, therefore he is sick and tired of how the world is and accepts death for a crime that he did not do. At the end of the film however, we see Paul, (the elderly ex prison guard) taking long walks daily to an abandoned shed in the forest. The audience are then shown the very mouse that John Coffey saved and are also informed that Paul will live forever also, as John gave each of them a part of him due to the miracles he performed on each of them.

Overall, the film cleverly shows the common belief about miracles being mystical events that simply cannot be explained, whilst putting a twist by giving these powers to someone like John Coffey, who would not typically be seen as one who performs such miracles. I believe this shows that the belief in miracles still exists today as it is explored through the moral dilemmas in this film. 

K.F

My Sister's Keeper

Have you ever felt out of control in your life? Maybe in day to day situations where the stresses of your workplace/school make you feel like you’ve lost control of your future? Maybe you get angry sometimes and cannot control the emotion you feel and lash out when you don’t mean to? I’m sure, the majority of all of us have control over what we do with our lives but God has a role in this also – he has a plan for us which we must obey. However, in ‘My Sisters Keeper’ (2009), 11 year old Anna has no choice. She has no control over what she wants - over her body, her future, her whole life. She was born in order to save her older sister’s life and she was treated as a means to an end, rather than as a person in herself.

The film (starring Cameron Diaz as Anna’s mother and Abigail Breslin as Anna) follows Anna’s journey to try and take control of her own life by refusing to give any more of herself in order to save her sister, Kate, from terminal cancer. She is tired of being treated as unimportant compared to Kate and even realises herself, at such a young age, the reason why she was born: ‘I was engineered, born for a particular reason. A scientist hooked up my mother’s eggs and my father’s sperm to make a specific combination of genes. He did it to save my sister's life’. This leaves us wondering if this is ethical at all. Some may argue that genetic engineering in itself is wrong, however, does it make it better that Anna’s parents had a reason for doing it, or worse? Also, the issue of consent arises since Anna was a baby when she was tested on and these tests often gave her the most incredible discomfort. However, she could do nothing to stop it because that was her purpose on earth, her reason for her life - she was born in order to help another.

The catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that ‘human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his/her existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life’. Taking this quote into consideration, is this what Anna has? Does she have a respected life or rights as a person? Surely, if she had rights as a person, she would not have been put through (or to put herself through) all the procedures carried out on her and would have been able to stop it at any time. Instead she had to result in bringing her own family to court because they will not let her stop helping her sister. She cannot have a good sanctity of life through this process; her life is not being respected and she is being treated as a means to an end. In order for someone to have a good sanctity of life, they must be treated as a person in themselves. This means no operations, tests or procedures should have been carried out on Anna without her consent in order to help her sister if she has a good sanctity of life. It can be argued that her parents are limiting this for her.

This film does leave us wondering whether doing this is ethical in anyway. Yes, Anna is doing a good thing; she is helping her sister by trying to save her despite her own discomfort. This is an incredibly brave thing to do and we see at the end of the film that Anna only stops helping because Kate has asked her to as she knows she will die and doesn’t want her sister to be treated as a means to an end any more. However, we cannot just focus on the family in this film, we must also look to the scientists who suggest the process of having a baby in order to save another child. This raises the issue of if they are ‘playing God’; is this what the scientists are doing? Some may argue they are doing ‘God’s will’ – trying their best in order to save a patient’s life like loving their neighbour as Jesus taught them. However, some will disagree. God may have wanted Kate to die for a reason; he may have had a plan for her but when doctors use genetic engineering, it results in the disposal of embryos which some would argue are already a human life. Therefore, although they are saving one person, they may be going against what God wants for them by ending human life in the process – is this ethical at all?

Taking all into account, even though the motives of the family were good (i.e. they acted out of love) the way in which they went about getting the result they wanted is seen as extremely unethical by many people. However, can we really judge this until we are in that situation? If your daughter was dying, could we really be absolute in saying we wouldn't go to the same extreme? How can we say our emotions would not influence our thinking when we have never been in the situation Anna’s parents were in? The film causes a lot of controversy and I would say everyone will have their own opinion on whether they think the actions in the film were done ethically or not. I would definitely recommend the film to anyone to get them really thinking about genetic engineering and stem cell research. It is a topic everyone is aware of, however, most do not know enough about it to have a valid opinion. It is a thought-provoking and moving film which can be enjoyed by people of all ages and beliefs.

Inception – A Philosophical Review

Have you ever been completely positive that you have woken up from a dream, but to only realise that you are in fact still asleep? A dream within a dream? Sometimes this happens to us and can certainly throw you off, and can really make you wonder if you are dreaming or is this reality. 

Inception, a Leonardo DiCaprio blockbuster hit the cinemas in 2010 with a bang. A film where DiCaprio’s character Cobb is described as a ‘thief of ideas’; he shares a dream with his target to capture the secrets of a person hidden in his subconscious. He goes further and further in and out of his conscious mind where he can hardly establish what is dreams and what is reality. This idea of dreams and reality has been touched by many philosophers in history, and this film really does grasp the concept.

This film is built on a classic argument called the ‘argument of the dream’. Nolan built his film idea as: ‘an individual can share the dream of another, or create any decor. And whether there is or is not in the dream of someone else, you must bring a totem, an object of known characteristics alone, the weight felt.’ The argument of the dream has been investigated by Plato, Aristotle and Descartes.

Descartes wanted to fully establish whether we can ever really know for certain if we are dreaming or not. He therefore considered the possibilities that he is crazy, dreaming, or even possessed? His ‘radical scepticism’ is tested as if we cannot even 100% tell if we are dreaming, how can we know for sure that the world we live in is real? He even came to the question if he were real! 

This is where it gets confusing - Descartes realised that even if he were mistaken about everything, then he must still be thinking, because he can’t be deceived unless he is thinking. Therefore if he is thinking then he must therefore exist, as there must be a ‘thinking thing’. And this idea sprouted his famous quote “I think, therefore I am”.

Descartes created an idea which resolves the blur between dreams and reality, and that being that “our memory can never connect our dreams with each other and with the course of life, in the way it is in the habit of doing with events that occur when we are awake.” Therefore to establish possibility that you might be dreaming, you need to be awake. This is a way to distinguish dreams from reality, therefore can provide evidence that you aren’t currently dreaming.

Therefore in the film Inception, Nolan bases the whole film on in fact rejecting Descartes solution. When Cobb goes into the dream state he is fully aware that he might be dreaming but might not. Therefore in the film it is impossible to tell if you are dreaming or not without having the ‘totem’ to confirm, whereas Descartes knew how to establish between dream and reality without such a thing as he was able to distinguish dreams from reality because it can’t occur to us within a dream that we might be dreaming. That’s why the film could only have ever ended with the doubt if Cobb was dreaming or not, even if the totem stopped spinning at the end of the film, it would still be impossible to tell if he was dreaming or not because even when he created the totem, that could have been a dream also. 

In conclusion, Inception as well as being a great film overall despite the philosophical point of view, it does create thought-provoking ideas about what are dreams and what is reality and how can we distinguish the difference? The film creates its own theory of this and definitely made me think, I recommend the film if you are looking for something to really get you thinking.

V,S

Dead Poets Society

The Dead Poets Society is a film which can really represent different moral and philosophical issues by following the films moto ‘Carpe Diem’. This is Latin for ‘seize the day’ which is shown through the courage of the students for standing up in favour of something, and doing their own thing. In this case, it’s the ability to become free-thinkers and enjoy poetry in life. The saying ‘carpe diem’ can even be linked back to biblical times, as there were many references in the Bible to living life to the full, and taking opportunities that may come our way. 

This is shown by the unconventional English teacher who challenges his students to question anything they have been taught before, such as standing on their desks and ripping out chapters of their text books. This is easily linked to any key Ancient Athenian key philosophers who have stated their opinion that we must learn to think for ourselves, and become rich within our own knowledge. As Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Therefore, we must broaden our knowledge as much as we can, even if others around us don’t agree this is right. 

This can then easily be linked to an ethical issue that was also raised in the film, which was justice, law and punishment. Even though the film only lightly touches upon this particular ethical topic, it is still apparent throughout the whole film. The students don’t go as far as to break the law, but they are certainly going against the rules of the school, and so is their English teacher, who is pursuing this forward-thinking set of mind. The government and head teacher of the school believe that the students should be taught from the books, and everything has to be examined, to in turn form a conclusion, including poetry. However, their English teacher, Mr Keating, believes that the boys should be thinking for themselves and concentrates on the power of passion that poetry can contain. This leads to the boys creating a secret club that meet in the dead of night within a cave near the campus to discuss poetry. When they are found out, what means of punishment should be used for disobeying the rules of the school? In the film, the cane was used to punish one of the students, but could this ever be justified today? Is it too hard to decide what punishment would be appropriate for this type of rule breaking because there are too many opinions? Mr Keating, a man who obviously had a wide range of knowledge and was professional would have suggested otherwise. 

The main conflict in the whole of the film wasn’t actually between the students and their new-found love for poetry against the school rules, but actually between a student named Neil, who dreamed of becoming an actor, and his father, who commands him to become a doctor. Neil lacked the will to defy his father, and ends up committing suicide. This is yet another ethical topic raised in the film, life after death. Many people, both religious and non-religious, believe in life after death, and that there is Somewhere else to go once our bodies have moved on. However, some absolute Catholics may actually believe that because Neil committed suicide, he took his own life, and tried to play the role of God. Therefore, he will not be able to enter heaven, because we shouldn’t try and play the role of God, as we are only humans, and we cannot do such a thing.

The fact that Neil actually committed suicide also means that it is easy to look at the philosophical topic of conscience. Neil’s father is probably going to evermore wish he could have been more lenient and understanding with his wish to be on stage, as his grief was depicted so clearly. Is it fair that this is going to stay upon his conscience forever, because of the action that his son took? Or is conscience actually just a feeling that we made up in our own minds, and doesn’t really exist?

Overall, the Dead Poets Society was a really good film that touched upon many different ethical and philosophical topics and highlighted them in clever ways. However, I think the main message that was trying to be highlighted above all others was the idea of ‘carpe diem’ and living our lives to the full. The fact that the film ended with Neil committing suicide was a contrast to this message, as he ended his life. This could be because he didn’t feel like his life would be to the full without his love of acting being involved in some way. 

HL

Religious Experiences: Lourdes

Religious Experiences

After my recent trip to Lourdes with the BCYS in the summer of 2014, I have been interested in religious experiences and the ways in which they can affect, and subsequently change an individual’s life forever. I have learnt recently that any religious experience is completely personal and different from anyone else’s and I never thought that I myself would receive one. Considering it was my first time travelling to Lourdes and even having any involvement with the BCYS, I didn’t really know what to expect. However, one thing I can say I did expect was to be suddenly overwhelmed and astonished on my arrival (many people had said to me how Lourdes had changed their lives), however that did not happen. Although Lourdes is one of the most iconic holy places in the world and although I was taken aback by how truly beautiful it was, it didn’t feel particularly ‘holy’ at the beginning of the trip. However, I discovered that the power of Lourdes does not actually hit you right away as it wasn’t until the Monday evening during confession at Reconciliation, that I truly appreciated being in such a beautiful and holy place. Firstly, we walked a rather long way in the rain to discover that we were locked out of the room that we needed for our Reconciliation session. It was then that we decided, whilst waiting, to pray a decade of the rosary together as a group. As we all huddled under umbrellas together, trying not to get soaked in the rain, I looked around at the people that surrounded me; the people who didn’t care that they were getting soaked and chilly, that didn’t care that they were completely exposed to the rain that was now pounding down along with hailstones, but just blocked everything out around them and concentrated on praying. I also realised that I didn’t know some of these people at all, (apart from my group and various friends I had made on the trip already) however, we all shared one thing that brought us all together: Our Faith. This was the first thing that really inspired me at Lourdes, however it didn’t stop there. At first, I didn’t feel that I really wanted to go to Confession, as it was optional. However, I felt that I needed to make the most of my time at Lourdes whilst I was still there, and went to confession with Father Dominick. I didn’t believe my fellow group members, who had been to Lourdes before, when they said that Reconciliation was an emotional night in which everybody seemed to cry. However, I proved myself wrong. As soon as I sat down and was asked what it was I wanted to confess, I burst into tears as something just seemed to hit me that I felt so overwhelmed and astonished. I had not envisaged what I believe was a religious experience to be like this at all. It wasn’t what I wanted to confess that made me cry so much, it was just the realisation that I was in such a special place surrounded by the most inspirational people I had ever met. It was the constant reminder of how fortunate I was, and how unfortunate others were that made me extremely upset, especially when I felt that I did not always deserve everything I received. I was surprised that I had been constantly reminded in school and at Mass how fortunate I was and how others around me were suffering greatly, but there was something different about this moment that made it real. In Lourdes, you are constantly re-evaluating your life in comparison with the various people around you. Every day, our group walked past mothers holding sick children, the elderly getting pushed in wheelchairs by volunteers, and more directly, Father Bob’s group who needed constant care and assistance from the year 13’s. Confession and Reconciliation for me was a religious experience in itself, and has taught me to sometimes take a step back from the business of my life and really appreciate the things that I have and to never take them for granted. After my emotional reconciliation, we walked back through the Domain together to light candles as a group. Once again, I noticed the beauty of Lourdes, but in a way that really affected me and once again reduced me and my friends to tears. It was virtually pitch black, apart from the Upper Basilica, The Grotto and the Candles shining light around the Domain, all lit up beautifully. It was also the silence in the Domain that really allowed me to reflect and appreciate being in such an amazing place and getting to experience these feelings. As we lit a candle as a group, and prayed for a group leader that was taken ill, I also realised that I was surrounded by people who would constantly be there for me when I needed them, and who would keep me in their prayers even if I experienced the smallest of problems. Meeting such an amazing group of people really inspired me to reflect on my own faith and my own relationship with God and this has stayed with me even on my departure from Lourdes. I believe that this experience is something that will stay with me throughout my entire life and has really strengthened my faith in so many ways. You do not have to be the most devoted Catholic to go to Lourdes, as I certainly wasn’t and still aren’t, however, Lourdes will affect different people in different ways. I am happy to say that I believe I made the most of my time at Lourdes and am extremely grateful for the important life lessons it taught me and the strong impact that the journey had on my faith.

K.F

Is War Ever Justified?

There are many ongoing armed conflicts that are taking place around the world and which continue to result in violent death, and the most recent conflict is the 2013 South Sudanese political crisis in Africa, South Sudan where there have been over 1000 deaths in this year alone. The most devastating conflict is the War in Afghanistan, which began in 1978 and still continues today, resulting in 1,405,111-2,084,468 deaths. These figures are devastating and shocking, however in some cases is it right to risk the lives of thousands and go to war?

There are three main approaches to issues surrounding war and peace: the just war theory (the belief war is morally justified is it meets certain criteria), realism (the belief ethics has nothing to do with war and it’s often necessary to promote security, survival and economic growth) and pacifism (the belief that all violence is wrong). The just war theory is split into two questions: when is it right to fight? (Jus ad bellum) and how should war be fought? (Jus in bello). For a war to be considered just, there are six conditions which must be met in order for this to happen. First, war must be in a just cause, meaning the war is only just if it is fought for a reason that is justified and that carries moral sufficient weight – the just cause is to put right a wrong or to prevent a wrong for happening. Secondly, War must be declared by a competent authority, meaning only a war declared by a government/ruler of the state with the legitimate authority to declare war can be a just war. Thirdly, there must be a just intention which is as just as the cause i.e. a war should not be fought with the deliberate intention of killing a country’s leader or in a spirit of hatred or revenge. Forth, there must be a comparison of justice on both sides so both sides must be compared and have a just reason to fight, fifth, war must be a last resort; so must only be resulted to after all other negotiation had failed. Lastly, there should be a reasonable likelihood of success – there should be a better state of affairs after the war than there were before.

There are also criteria that must be met when fighting the war itself, there should be a reasonable proportion between the injustice being fought and the suffering that will be inflicted, the cause of justice cannot be upheld by unjust means. Robert Holmes wrote ‘unless one can justify the actions necessary to waging war, one cannot justify the conduct of war’. Also, this proportionality must be exercised meaning the use of weapons must be proportional to the threat and only minimum force should be used. There must be fair treatment of prisoners of war, no reprisals and those at war must have an obligation to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate targets of destruction and between innocent civilians and those involved in waging the war ‘an act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas, along with their populations is a crime against God and man himself’ The Vatican statement (Article 80).

However, absolute pacifists will disagree with this theory, because they believe it is never right to kill another human being, no matter what the consequences of not doing so might be, even the loss of life. Even though this may be a good and kind attitude to have, there are certain situations I think this could fail. For example if there was an intruder in your house threatening the lives of your loved ones and yourself, if you had the opportunity to kill or hurt the intruder in order to save your family, would you? Even if you were a pacifist, surely the love you have for your family would resort you to attempting to stop harm coming to them? Or even if you saw someone in the street being mugged or harmed in some way, surely helping the person by resulting to violence may be the lesser of two evils? Other pacifists may say that Jesus preached a better way to respond then violence, and to turn the other cheek when something hurts us so to use an alternative means to make peace. However Jesus at one point took his anger out on the temple, so he used violence for something which didn’t even have a just cause, who is to say that we can’t do that too?

Overall, war is something which has been around for so long, and we live in an unjust world. Trying to get rid of war is like trying to get rid of sin – it just will not happen. This means that war must somehow be justified, if it will improve things in the future, surely this must be the best thing to do. Jesus never sent soldiers away from John the Baptist, he just told them not to miss use their power, so surely if soldiers have good intentions and do not miss use their powers, then war is justified. Pacifists may say that we must have the courage and strength to behave in the way you believe and that it’s better to kill than to kill; however if you were ever in a life or death situation, would you really be able to stand there and take the harm coming to you? This is why, in my opinion, I feel that war can be justified.

KD

Situation Ethics

Situation Ethics is a Christian ethical theory that was developed by Joseph Fletcher. Stating that other moral principles can be overruled in some situations if love is the final consequence of an action. Situation ethics underlines the importance of the individual in making moral decisions. Joseph Fletcher developed the idea of making a moral decision for a particular situation. He wrote the book 'Situation Ethics' in 1996 explaining his theory. He stated that it was better that a person made a decision on what moral course of action they should follow rather than follow a set of unwritten rules they hardly know anything about. He believed that God doesn't want us to follow and conform to rules like a robot.

An important concept of situation ethics is that it contains no universal/ moral rules or rights. This states that situation ethics are not laws and do not have to be continuously followed. The issue of right and wrong means that there is an increase in the situation being relative. What may be seen as the most loving outcome in a situation may not have the same outlook in different religions and cultures. This however is helpful to some extent. The lack of universal guidelines reinforces that the theory is more flexible. This is an important concept because it can apply to a wide range of situations in various parts of the world. Such as how different cultures may have guidelines that they ask others to abide by to respect their culture when entering said country. The loving thing would be to abide by there request but it could also be seen as loving to make others abide by the ways of western cultures also. 

Another important concept of situation ethics is that it is takes into consideration personalism. This states that man comes first in any situation and rules follow after. It details how it is more important to do right by other people than to follow religious rules at the expense of people. This gives a realistic feel to the theory and also provides the chance of each situation to become personal. Theories such as utilitarianism are developed on a broader level and do not depict how each situation is different, includes different aspects and emotions/feelings towards that particular situation. Rules cannot always work in every situation some situations such as the aborting of a foetus that was conceived out of rape. In some countries rules say that abortions are not legalised. The loving thing to do would be to abort the foetus as the birth could cause psychological damage to the mother or worse the child could grow up receiving the same psychological damage. The importance of personalism is shown in this example and how rules being placed second can be more beneficial. 

Situation ethics carefully fits in with the teachings of Jesus. The phrase “love thy neighbour” carefully depicts situation ethics in a biblical way. Jesus constantly went against the following of rules to help another being during his time on earth. To and extent he did the most loving thing to do by doing this which is what situation ethics revolves around. Positivism is a positive choice made during a situation that freely chooses to believe in agape love. Agape love being love that is unconditional and the word agape is Greek for love. Christian teachings and Christian love link into situation ethics to assist in making situational decisions where faith is rooted into for Christians but it also allows room for secular beings to make a decision. Following the teachings of Jesus is an important concept of situation ethics because it shows closely how people of the Christian faith want to try as hard to stay in line with what God has set for them such as the rule “love thy neighbour”. 

Another key feature of Situation ethics are the six working principles. The working principles are; Love only is always good, Love is the only norm, Love and justice are the same, love is justice distributed, Love is not liking and always wills the neighbour’s good, Love is the only means. These principles contribute as an important feature because Love is intrinsically valuable, it has inherent worth. Love is good. Nothing else has intrinsic value but ‘it gains or acquires its value only because it happens to help people (thus being good) or to hurt people (thus being bad)’. A lie is not intrinsically wrong. It is wrong if it harms people, but may sometimes be right. For the situationist, what makes the lie right is its loving purpose it assesses the outcome of the action as the moral worth, which means that anything may be done as long as it brings about the most loving outcome.

Although containing many key and important feature there are many criticism which undermine the theory. 

One way in which the concepts are undermined is that because there are no moral or universal laws it is hard to define love. Each individual would have their own definition of what love is and what the most loving thing to do would be. The use of a universal law allows a way for everyone to be able to communicate and decide how to act during a situation that is more suitable for the majority of society. Also situation ethics is an unprincipled relativist system; it allows room for any action to occur because of how subjective the theory is people would naturally disagree about it.

Situation ethics is also a consequentialist theory. The difficulty that occurs when trying to predict the future can cause some trouble. Nobody can exactly tell the future and the outcome could change for any situation because we cannot define what may happen. It is also unreliable to base a decision on love because everyone’s view can be different. This critiques how situation ethics involves Personalism.

In situation ethics you treat every situation differently, taking no account of previous experience. Some have said that this means that you cannot hold a consistent moral approach and you are in danger of missing the bigger picture. William Barclay says that we need the guidance of law and an understanding of past experiences. Barclay also said that Fletcher was rather optimistic about human nature. Saying that if we all made our own moral decisions we would essentially be selfish. This undermines situation ethics because instead of religiously following the rules of love some people may start to follow rules.

Also the Christian concept in situation ethics may not appeal to everybody. People such as atheists would maybe disagree with how the teachings of Jesus entwine with situation ethics. Their faith or lack of may have them believe in something different and could be why it may not appeal to everybody. This critiques how the theory can apply to everyone.

Although there are many important concepts of situation ethics such as, how it incorporates the teachings of Jesus and how universal laws are also not incorporated into the theory. All these important concepts contribute to making situation ethics a theory that can be used in the 21st century because of its more updated concepts unlike theories such as utilitarianism.However, the theory has many critiques which could allow the theory to not apply to a variety of people. Situation ethics can be seen as a rule and rules/ laws can always be broken. There is nothing to say that people should break the theory. Also the theory allows people to put themselves before and this can cause people to be selfish and go against the theory.

SO