Situation ethics is the theory that the morally right thing to do in any given situation is that which would result in the most “loving” outcome. It is a teleological theory, that meaning that the result is more important than the intermediate steps to get to the conclusion (like committing minor evils for a greater good).

This medium of thought was first outlined by Joseph Fletcher in his book “Situation Ethics: The New Morality”. Fletcher was an Episcopal priest[1] who developed the theory in the 60s. This theory was to cause much controversy, as Fletcher claimed that this was the ethical theory that Jesus followed.

This Christian ethical theory follows the idea that there are no moral absolutes, save that of love. Situation ethics is based around “love” more than anything. This “agape”[2] love on which Fletcher based his ethics is reminiscent of Jesus Christ in the bible.  Jesus tells his followers to “love thy neighbour” and essentially this is the basis fore situation ethics.

Fletcher’s view on laws was that there are no absolutist values or laws. The exception being the law of Agape, the law of love. As I previously stated, this mode of thought is teleological, meaning that the ends justify the means, as long as the most “agape” is produced at the end.

One of the main strengths about situation ethics is the fact that it is very simplistic and easy to follow. As often is the case with philosophical theories, some of the strongest cases are the simplest. If you are in an ethical dilemma, you simply weigh up the problems, and the result that produces the most “agape” should be the correct course of action.

Situation ethics is seen by most ethical scholars to be the middle ground between legalism[3] and antinomian relativism[4].  Fletcher also put forward the idea that Jesus was a situationist, rather than most thought, an absolutist. In “situation ethics: the new morality[5]” Fletcher states:

 “The situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so.”

Fletcher tells us that with situation Ethics there is only right or wrong, despite however sticky the situation there is always a correct decision, one which has the most love. The decision that has the most love, is also therefore the most “good” and the right decision to make.

In Joseph Fletcher’s book he provides a number of situations, albeit extreme ones, to prove his point.

“At the Battle of the Bulge (World War 2, winter of 1944), a German infantryman named Bergmeier was captured and taken into a prisoner of war camp in Wales. Later, his wife, compelled to forage for food for their three children, was picked up by a Soviet patrol. Before she could get word back to them, she was sent off to a prison camp in the Ukraine. Within a few months, Bergmeier was released and upon return to Berlin began to search for his family.

He found Paul, who was 10, and Ilse, who was 12, in a Russian detention school. Their 15-year-old brother, Hans, was found hiding in a cellar. But they searched in vain for some word of their mother. Her whereabouts remained a mystery. During those agonizing months of heartache, hunger and fear, they needed their mother to reknit them as a family.

Meanwhile, in the Ukraine, Mrs. Bergmeier learned through a sympathetic commandant that her husband and children were together in Berlin and were desperately trying to find her. But the Russian rules would allow her release for only two reasons: (1) an illness requiring medical care beyond the camp facilities, in which case she would be sent to a Soviet hospital elsewhere, and (2) pregnancy, in which case she would be returned to Germany as a liability.

She wrestled with the alternatives and finally asked a friendly camp guard to impregnate her. When her condition was medically verified, she was immediately returned to Berlin and to her family. They welcomed her with open arms even when she told them how she managed it. When little Dietrich was born, they especially loved him, feeling that he had done what no one else could do—bring the family back together (1968, p. 74). “[6]

This is a perfect example for what is normally considered wrong, adultery, in the eyes of society. However, it is a celebrated sin, perhaps the lesser of two evils, as it produces a greater good or “agape”. Fletcher describes this as “sacrificial adultery” the two opposites seem, in his eyes to cancel each other out.

The cracks in situational ethics begin to show at this point. An example such as this is well and good, however when the evil and the resultant agape action become more unbalanced, the option whether or not to carry out becomes fuzzy. Another problem arises with the fact that this is a teleological theory. When you begin to try to predict the future, a huge number of variables arrive, and it is very difficult to arrive at your predicted outcome.

Situational ethics would also expect you to disobey the laws if it suited you, for instance, a Robin Hood scenario seems apt as although the masked bandit was doing the people of Nottingham a favour, he was also disregarding the law of the land. Likewise, nowadays, you could justify yourself with situation ethics, even if your intentions were not pure as you portrayed them to be, you can justify yourself. Therefore this abstract idea of “agape” can be manipulated.

Fletcher gave us a simple theory that is very versatile and practical. Problems arise when you try to define “agape”, which leads to more principles and further ones still.  Although situation ethics is quite a strong theory superficially, it has its drawbacks. Certainly it is flawed with the fact that it’s entire premise and base, “agape”, is itself relative from person to person, love for one person is not the same for another. This inherent problem in situation ethics is its downfall, and for me, this form of ethics is not a practical go-between betwixt the philosophy of an absolute absolutist or a total relativist.

Overall, I believe that situation ethics, although it is strong on the surface, soon breaks down. The strengths of the argument are very apparent; it is far easier to always have a correct solution to a problem, however “sticky”. Fletcher quoted a cab driver to explain this “Sometimes you’ve gotta put your principles to one side and do the right thing”.

The “absolute”, love, or the “right thing” is the problem. This “absolute”, love in practice is actually relative to one person as it is for another, meaning that one person’s loving solution could be the opposite to another’s. It also heavily upon predicting the results your actions and hoping they will lead to good ones. As with the example of the Bergmeier[7] example earlier, if the wife had not been impregnated after copulation, the act would have been bad, with no “good” result, and as Fletcher says “there is no good act, only love” therefore the good intentions of the act wouldn’t be “good”.

Although in theory situation ethics seems to be sound, in practice it is difficult to succeed with. As with all teleological theories, chance is factored in, something that may not lead to the best outcome; the most “agape”, despite the “loving” intentions “love” might not be the end result.

Bibliography

Cox, H. (1968). The Situation Ethics Debate.

Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation Ethics: The new morality.

Thompson, A. (2004). The effect of situation ethics upon moral values. Apologetics press .

Titus, S. N. (2008, 9 28). Situation Ethics. Retrieved from Philosophy Religion: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/situation.htm

End notes:

[1] Later in Fletcher’s life he becomes an atheist.

[2] Agape love is the absolute love for all people, it is unconditional.

[3] There are a set of absolute rules that we should follow.

[4] There are no rules that we should follow, rules differ from situation to situation and place to place.

[5] See bibliography.

[6] Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation Ethics: The new morality

[7] See the previous italicised quotation from Situation Ethics: The new morality.