Christian Ethics- NML and Situation Ethics

ARISTOTLE ARISTOTLE said that ‘there is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses.’ Aristotle was an early EMPIRICIST. An empiricist believes that we acquire all knowledge of the world through what the senses tell us. What we experience in this world is the real thing, not some pale reflection. Aristotle believed in the importance of human reason, but not as a sole means to knowledge devoid from our experience of the world. He didn’t see the point of trying to understand something remote from our immediate experience.

Why does it rain? There are several causes that lead to the rain falling from the sky BUT Aristotle felt that the FINAL CAUSE is that it rains BECAUSE plants and animals need rainwater in order to grow. Aristotle assigns the raindrops a ‘life-task’ or ‘purpose’. This is what he means by the ‘final cause’.

HOW CAN WE LIVE A GOOD LIFE ? In his ethics Aristotle was obviously concerned with the question of how to achieve the ‘good life’. How should we live? What does it require to live a good life?

Man can only achieve happiness by using all his abilities and capabilities; by achieving his potential. The ‘life-task’ or ‘final purpose’ of rain is to water plants so that they can grow!!! So, what is the life-task or purpose of a human being?

THOMAS AQUINAS CAME UP WITH AN ANSWER: THE FINAL PURPOSE OF A HUMAN BEING IS TO  TO LIVE  TO LEARN  TO REPRODUCE  TO ORDER SOCIETY  TO WORSHIP GOD

To commit euthanasia/abortion is to break the principle to live To be happy with ignorance breaks the law to learn To practice contraception or homosexuality is to break the rule to reproduce To disregard the laws of the community is to be anarchic and bring disorder to society To not search for God, to reject or to not use our reason to work out our God given human purpose is to break the last of the 5 primary principles

NATURAL LAW is the belief that natural laws are part of the STRUCTURE OF OUR WORLD and that we need to use our REASON to discover them and follow them. In that sense anyone can follow them even if they are not religious CATHOLIC NATURAL MORAL LAW EVIL is falling short of what it is to be human by ignoring natural laws, by choosing acts which PREVENT the actualisation of human potential It is a LEGALISTIC approach; once you know the rules them whatever the CONSEWQUENCES OR OUTCOME

GOOD AND EVIL Good is fulfilling your potential Evil is falling short of your potential

NML-A SUMMARY There are natural laws They can be discovered using reason We can then follow the laws Good is fulfilling one’s potential Evil is falling short of what we are capable of Catholic Natural Moral Law It is the action we choose that is good or bad Consequences do not dictate what is right Either it is right or it is wrong It is not flexible or relative It establishes absolute standards

SITUATION ETHICS JOSEPH FLETCHER-1960’S REJECTION OF LEGALISM AGAPEIC LOVE SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY RULE RULES SHOULD NOT COME BEFORE THE TYPE OF LOVE AND COMPASSION WHICH JESUS SHOWED IN THE GOSPELS

THE FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES PRAGMATISM RELATIVISM POSITIVISM PERSONALISM

PRAGMATISM  'The good is what works!' (p.42)  Situation Ethics is the 'right way', as far as Fletcher is concerned, because it works! It is not good because of obedience to a rule. It is good because it brings about good (positive) results. The good is what works!  'To be correct or right a thing - a thought or an action - must work. Yes. But to what end, for what purpose, to satisfy what standard or ideal?' (p.42)  Those who have criticised Situation Ethics for being relativistic do so because they believe the ethical 'good' requires some Ultimate standard in order to secure a fixed boundary around what is right or wrong behaviour.criticised relativistic

RELATIVISM  The principle of love is applied relative to each situation so that an appropriate response is made. 'Our obligation is relative to the situation; but obligation in the situation is absolute' (p.27)).  'The Situationist avoids words like never and perfect and always and complete as [they] avoid the plague, [as they] avoid absolutely.' (p.44)  'In Christian Situationism the ultimate criterion is, as we shall be seeing, 'agapeic love'. It relativises the absolute, it does not absolutise the relative.' (p.45)

POSITIVISM  The decision to follow a Situationist-based ethic is due to the fact that it works ('We cannot verify moral choices. They may be vindicated but not validated.' (p.49)). Beginning with the principle of love one makes a decision about the basis upon which one will live which will be vindicated because it is believed to work (consequentialism). However, this means we need to make an initial ethical 'leap-of-faith' to act in a certain way and to trust that this is the best way. Although Situation Ethics requires us to use our minds to work out what the best course of action is it is not a reasoned position. We do not arrive at 'truth' by some abstract logical method of working out what we should do (E.g. Natural Law). Rather, 'truth' is seen during and after the event, not before. Natural Law  'We love because God first loved us’.The decision to act in a loving way is a choice we make beforehand based on the notion that other ways do not work. It is not made because we have proved Situationism 'works' prior to the event.

PERSONALISM  'It is not the unbelieving who invite 'damnation' but the unloving' (p.52)  One of the things Legalism fails to take account of is that people are persons. When facing a moral dilemma the Legalist says, 'What does the law say?' whereas the Situationist says, 'Who is to be helped?'. The value which Legalists attach to their moral codes (they are always true) is only there for the Situationist insofar as the decisions they make work for the sake of people (they are true this time).  Another thing Fletcher believes Legalism fails to appreciate is that people exist in a social context and that any decision must be beneficial to the wider community rather than just the individual. One must also recognise that people are complex beings because they live in relation to other persons. The attempt to pre-package and pre-define ethics, for example in the case of abortion, fails to recognise this: Legalism fails to recognise the complexity of ethical decisions.

It is not the unbelieving who invite damnation but the unloving According to Fletcher legalism does not take into account the impact of decisions on the wider community

'The Situation Ethic, unlike some other kinds, is an ethic of decision - of making decisions rather than 'looking them up' in a manual of prefab rules.' (p.52)

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES It considers the situation and consequences e.g. a pregnancy as a result of rape. NML is inflexible. It considers the situation and consequences e.g. a pregnancy as a result of rape. NML is inflexible. It’s only absolute principle is Agapeic love. Jesus did not judge prostitutes or outcasts. He broke the Sabbath rules and put people first. It’s only absolute principle is Agapeic love. Jesus did not judge prostitutes or outcasts. He broke the Sabbath rules and put people first. It considers the whole situation and whilst respecting the laws is prepared to set them aside if agapeic love requires. Stealing is okay to save a family from starving. It considers the whole situation and whilst respecting the laws is prepared to set them aside if agapeic love requires. Stealing is okay to save a family from starving. Fletcher provides guidance and criteria with the 4 working principles and 6 fundamental principles Fletcher provides guidance and criteria with the 4 working principles and 6 fundamental principles It was described by Bishop Robinson as an ‘ethic for man coming of age’ which means we can be trusted to assess dilemmas and come to our decisions using Agape rather than following rules blindly. It was described by Bishop Robinson as an ‘ethic for man coming of age’ which means we can be trusted to assess dilemmas and come to our decisions using Agape rather than following rules blindly. Gives priority to consequences, but a 16 year old pregnant girl could turn out to be a better mother than expected? How do we establish motives? Could someone act selfishly despite their outward intention being agapeic love? Do actions such as stealing or murder have no intrinsic moral value? I may steal a gun to kill a mass murderer. Stealing a gun in this situation may be morally good, but that does not make stealing generally morally right? A rejection of moral principles means that moral judgements are subjective and down to personal whim. Is Proportionalism a compromise between NML and Situationism? Are we all capable of making decisions without clear guidance?