Situation Ethics

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.