| (Christian) Situational Ethics | |
Situation Ethics states that in every situation each individual is responsible for reviewing the rules, norms and guidelines for action; then implementing or setting aside those rules so that Love is best served. (Love as in "love thy neighbor as God loves you") |
To find out more about Joseph Fletcher and Situational Ethics, click on a link.
| Brief Biography | Some Background on Situation Ethics | The 4 Principles | The 6 Propositions | An Ethical Dilemma | Additional Resources |
| A Brief Biography |
Joseph Fletcher was born in 1905 and died in 1991 at the age of 86. He graduated from Berkeley Divinity School and was an Episcopal priest. His belief in a Situational Ethics framework and his related writings, frequently put him at odds with many of his fellow theologians. Under this framework he was, among other things, a supporter of euthanasia and abortion; and was an advocate of Planned Parenthood. Later in his life, much of his energy was spent writing about and working in the bio-medical/bio-ethics field and he is credited with being the "Father" (no-pun intended) of bio-ethics.
| Some Background on Situational Ethics |
Fletcher tells us that moral decisions often fall into 3 categories:
| Legalism | There exists a series of well defined and
absolute laws (secular, cultural and religious) that the individual must
implement in every situation. |
| Antinomianism | Each individual enters the decision-making
process with no laws, guiding principles or maxims, believing that they
will make the right decision spontaneously in the moment, and based on the
unique situation. (some
antinomianists believe this “right decision” information comes to them
from an outside source such as the Holy Spirit, or the combined wisdom of
the ages under the guise of intuition.) |
| Situationalism | If
Legalism and Antinomianism are the two ends of the spectrum,
Situationalism falls between them.
Each individual has an understanding of the “general rules” and
guiding principles of his/her culture and theology.
S/he uses this information to evaluate the situation and then
adopts or rejects the “rule” so that the Love (or highest good) can be
served in the situation. |
An Analogy:
|
Fletcher, in Situational Ethics,
suggests a minor but I think useful analogy to distinguish between these
three approaches. There exist
in the world rules or guidelines such as “hit the next pitch when you
have 3 balls in the count against you,” “kick on the third down,” cook a fish 10 minutes for each
inch of thickness, and don’t wear white after Labor Day. A Legalist would apply these rules in all circumstances constantly and uniformly. An Antinomianist would not acknowledge the rules and do what they felt made sense at the moment. A Situationalist would consider the “rules,” (realize that they are useful and represent the wisdom of knowledgeable participants) and would decide to adopt or reject the “rules” in the particular circumstance to achieve a result which resulted in Love. So in the case of baseball, the Legalist would take the next pitch if the count was 3 balls; there’s no telling what an antinomianist would decide to do; and a situationalist would consider the score, the inning, the players already on base, and the chances to win before deciding to take the next pitch or not. |
One additional note:
Because Fletcher comes from a Christian theology background, he describes
the ultimate goal as Love, defined as Judeo-Christian Love, the Love of which
only God is capable but which all people should strive to achieve.
(Think “love thy neighbor” Love.)
For the non-Christian, Fletcher suggests Love must be defined as some
other “highest good” which will represent the one and only standard.
| 4 Principles (Presuppositions) |
To set the stage, Fletcher defines 4 principles as contributing to Situational Ethics. Together, these principles describe a method which is active versus passive; which is about making decisions rather than looking them up in some identified source. (as would be the case in a legalist view.)
| Pragmatism | A practical success-oriented, action-oriented
position. It focuses on what is right, what is good, what works. |
| Relativism | In relativism, the understanding of truth
varies based on the observers and the situation.
Relativism must be relative to something and in the case of
situational ethics, all things are relative to Love. |
| Positivism | A belief or faith is “posited” or
declared, and is then supported by logic.
This is demonstrated in Situational ethics by positing a belief in
God as Love (or a higher good) and then reasoning what is required in any
situation to support that belief. |
| Personalism | This
is placing people, not principles or things, at the center of
consideration. |
| 6 Propositions |
These propositions are described by Fletcher in Situational Ethics as “…the six propositions on which it [situational ethics] rests.” These propositions are to be considered as guidelines or maxims to be used. (obviously situational ethics doesn’t have hard and fast rules other than the one truth of Love.)
The propositions are described in terms of Christian Situational Ethics, but can be used with any non-Christian oriented method which is supported by the 4 principles.
1. Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all.
2. The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else.
3. Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.
4. Love wills the neighbor’s good whether we like him or not.
5. Only the end justifies the means; nothing else.
6. Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.| An Ethical Dilemma |
| The Dilemma | You are a very poor single parent and do not
have enough money for food for yourself or your 3 children. As you are
walking down the street, you see a woman drop a ten-dollar bill. Do
you keep it or call to her and let her know she dropped it? |
| What would a Situational Ethicist do? | Stealing is against the law and against the 8th Commandment. (Thou shall not steal.) Taking the money may also put the woman who dropped it in a hardship position. Someone using the Situational Ethics framework would consider these principles (or "rules") and then discard them -- believing that relative to the absolute of "love thy neighbor as God would love you" the ultimate manifestation of Love is that the children should not go hungry. Therefore the situationalist would keep the money and use it to feed the children. |
| Additional Resources |
| Books |
Cox, H. (Ed.). (1967). The situation ethics debate. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. (out of print).
Fletcher, J. (1979). The Ethics of genetic control. Garden City: Doubleday Press.
Fletcher, J. (1993). Memoir of an ex-radical: reminiscence and reappraisal. Louisville: Westminster Press.
Fletcher, J. (1966). Situational ethics: the new morality. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.
Fletcher, J. & Montgomery, J.W. (1972). Situation ethics: true or false? Minneapolis: Dimension Books.
Williams, E. L. (1972). Situation ethics:
the new morality. Ballarat, Victoria: Bible Truth
Publications. Available: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/ewilliams/ETHICS.HTM
| Articles |
Benson, R. Joseph fletcher and situation ethics. Pastornet [online]. Available: http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/aasi/aasi0084.htm
Jackson, W. (1999) A critical look at situation ethics. The Christian Courier on the Web. [online]. Available: http://www.christiancourier.com/feature/march99.htm
Situation ethics. Church of Christ, Beaverton,
Oregon website. Available: Part 1 http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/SITETHIC.htm
Part 2 http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Situation_Ethics_2.html