1. Situation Ethics Scholars:
Joseph Fletcher- “Situation Ethics” 1966 (and articles prior to 1963)
J.A.T Robinson- “Honest To God” 1963

2. How things were traditionally…
Kantian Deontology (Divine Command Theory)
Moral rules are good in themselves and so the consequences should not be taken into account.
Murder is wrong because the act is wrong not because of the consequences.
No circumstances need to be taken into account, what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong.

3. How things were traditionally…
Natural Law
To be fulfilled we should achieve our purpose- to be human.
There is a natural law in ethics just like there are other laws in nature, eg gravity.
There is a definite right and wrong which we can discover through reason.
Because we work out what is right using our reason, circumstances can be taken into account. Aquinas said it is ok to steal in order to save your life.

4. Historical Background
In the 1960’s the LEGALISTIC approach- upheld by the Catholic church using Natural Law as its ethic was rejected by many young people.
In the universities ANTI-NOMIANISM was becoming increasingly popular, because of its rejection of absolute law

5. Historical Background
ANTI-NOMIANISM had its roots in French existentialism outlined by Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Human beings exist and construct their own ethic; they create their own characteristics.
The holocaust caused people to question the nature of humanity.
Vietnam caused the youth of America to question the paternalistic, legalistic state and Church

6. Historical Background
When Fletcher wrote “ Situation Ethics” in 1966, in the UK and USA there had been some big recent changes:
Women had moved towards equality and were now in the work place.
The US involvement in Vietnam and the assassination of Kennedy led to a mistrust of the government.
Martin Luther King had facilitated the civil rights movement.
The cultures changed due to a rejection of paternalism, authority, law and government.
The availability of contraception facilitated the new liberty expressed in the sexual revolution.
There were changes in fashion, music, politics, relationships (mixed race), religion and drugs.

7. Historical Background
By the end of the 60s western Europe and the US were morally and socially transformed.
Other factors that contributed to the changes were:
The emergence of teenagers as a social group
The rebellious spirit of the Rock and Roll culture
The growing power of the student movement.

8. The Church reaction Not everyone welcomed the change
The church wanted to respond to the changes and stop what was often seen as a lowering of moral standards.
The BCC (British Council of Churches) prepared a statement intended to convey:
“a sane and responsible attitude towards love and marriage in the face of misleading suggestions conveyed by much popular literature, entertainment and advertising.”
The church made use of the Schofield report (prepared in 1965 by the Central council for health education) which pointed to changes caused by:
“ Greater independence, more money in their pockets and purses, the weakening of family bonds and religious influences, the development of early maturity, physically, socially and emotionally; the impact of modern books, television and periodicals.”

9. J.A.T Robinson
When he published his book in 1963 it cast the church into disarray and disagreement.
He agreed with Paul Tillich that God is not “up there” at the top of the universe (Tillich) and that God is better understood as “the ground of our being.” He is of ultimate significance but not a “deus ex machina” a God outside the universe (who merely intervenes within).

10. J.A.T Robinson
Robinson also supported the work of Fletcher (who had not yet published his book but had published some ideas in articles).
The idea was that the new morality was not based on law but on love.
This work led to the BCC concluding that that the the church’s position regarding morality was not easy to define. This has led to a feeling of uncertainty in Christian ethics.
Robinson argued that “Dr Fletcher’s approach is the only ethic for a “man come of age” (Bonheoffer's words). To resist his approach in the name of religion will not stop it, it will only ensure the form it takes will be anti-Christian” (Honest to God)

11. The Law of Love Robinson based their morality on Agape
Agape is non-preferential and non-reciprocal (expects nothing in return).
Agape has no personal gain for the individual who shows love, indeed there may be a great personal expense. Living a life of selfless love and be demanding.
Agape has its origins in Judaism
“Hear O Israel, love the lord your God with all your mind, with all your soul with all your strength”
Deuteronomy 6:4-8
Love is essential for Judaism and underpins the Jewish emphasis on the Torah

12. The Law of Love
Jesus emphasised that agape would be at the heart of Christianity.
“Love God, Love your neighbour”
Rudolph Bultmann said that Jesus had no ethics, if we accept that his definition of ethics was a system of values and rules “intelligible for all men” (Bultmann)
Fletcher quoted this and said:
“Yet the point is not so much that there is no such universal ethic…but that no ethic needs to be systematic and that Jesus’ ethic most certainly was not”

13. The Law of Love
Fletcher and Robinson had moved from a Supranaturalist view of ethics to a situationalist or existential ethic.
Supranaturalist- right and wrong is derived directly from God, through laws etc…
Situationalist- The right or wrong of an action is decided by consideration of the specific circumstances.
This move was not universally popular. Page 93
Most Protestants and Catholics rejected this ethic because situation ethics requires morality to be relative.
Robinson responded to this saying:
The only way that people, rather than laws, can be truly valued is to value them “situationally not prescriptively.”

14. The Law of Love Robinson also said;
“ Whatever the pointers of the law to the demands of love, there can be for the Christians no “packaged” moral judgements- for persons are more important even than standards.” (H2G 1963)

15. Situation Ethics and Divorce Law
Robinson rejected the idea that when two marry they are united metaphysically by God and cannot be divorced because the union was witnessed and ratified in the heavenly realm. He summed this belief up as follows:
“It is not a question of “those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder:” no man could if he tried. For marriage is not merely indissoluble, it is indelible.”
Robinson considered this view to be outdated and potentially damaging.

16. Situation Ethics and Divorce Law
Robinson suggests that we abandon these old rules and restrictions in favour of love.
Fletcher and Robinson identified Agape as the only intrinsically good thing.
Barclay defined it as:
“Unconquerable good will; the determination to seek the other man’s highest good no matter what he does to you.”
Fletcher said:
“If the emotional and spiritual welfare of both parents and and children in a particular family can be served best by divorce, wrong and cheapjack as divorce commonly is, then love requires it.”
He is not saying divorce is always right, rather that it can be the most loving thing to do.

17. An Alternative to Legalism & Antinomianism
The middle path between legalism & antinomianism is situation ethics. Jesus rejected the legalism of the Pharisees:
“the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Love shows that persons are more important and take precedence over the adherence to laws.

18. An Alternative to Legalism & Antinomianism
The relativism and personalism of Situation Ethics triumphs over laws – yet at the same time love offers an intrinsic good as a foundation – thus avoiding a lawless approach towards ethics.

19. Joseph Fletcher Fletcher identified 3 approaches to morality: Legalism
A Law based society
Antinomianism
A lawless society
Situationism
The middle way. “The situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community…and he treats them with respect…Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love is better served by doing so.”

20. Joseph Fletcher
The Situationist uses is supposed to keep the laws of society but also to be prepared to break them if it is the most loving thing to do.
Situation Ethics is similar to utilitarianism in that they both reject absolutes but the principle of happiness is very different to the principle of Agape. Do not say that situation ethics is a version of utilitarianism!!!

21. Joseph Fletcher 4 Presuppositions of situation ethics Personalism
God is personal and has created human beings in his image. Personality is therefore the first order concern of ethics.
Situation ethics maxim to love one’s neighbour: love of people, by the people, for the people.
Situation ethics focuses upon pragma (doing) not dogma (teaching).

22. Joseph Fletcher Pragmatism
John Dewey argued that children learn through experiencing and doing things for themselves.
The more interactions we ascertain the more we know about the object in question.

23. Joseph Fletcher Theological Positivism
Since God is love it makes sense to live a life of agape which shows that this approach to life is a real possibility for humans.
Jesus lived such a life and he said “a new commandment I give to you that you love one another as I have loved you. By this will all men know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another.” Matthew

24. Joseph Fletcher Relativism
Situation ethics is described as being an ethic of relativism – there are no absolute morally binding laws which should always be followed – except applying love to any particular situation
“The absolutism of love is its power to go into concrete situations to discover what is demanded by the predicament.” Paul Tillich

25. Joseph Fletcher Six Principles of Situation Ethics
Nothing is good in and of itself except agape.
Jesus replaced the Decalogue with agape, “I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them.”Mt 5:17-19
Love and justice are compatible. Fletcher argues that agape means standing up for justice- representing those who are oppressed.

26. Joseph Fletcher
Love wills the good of the neighbour: as agape is a selfless love one is called to love other people without the desire for reward, there is no personal interest. Jesus said “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
Love is the end that is sought – agape is a consequential ethic.

27. Joseph Fletcher
Love’s decision are made in the context of particular situations. Such a principle relates to the relativism of Situation Ethics – it all depends on the situation and how love should be applied.

28. Unique situations
Page 96

29. The Benefits of Situation Ethics

30. Autonomy of individuals
There is no longer a need to follow rules rather decisions based on love can be made by people who individually assess the needs of the particular situation.
It is a move away from a rigid, legalistic approach to ethical decision making.

31. A Democratic ethic
Harvey Cox, argued that Situation Ethics is democratic as all people are capable of making decisions based on the ethic of love – there is no hierarchical system to follow.

32. Relates to the human condition
Both Paul Tillich and Joseph Fletcher argued that agape relates to the human condition – it is a real possibility for humans to live a life of love and so fulfil their purpose of human existence – God created people with free will to enter a love relationship with God and their neighbours. Love relates to human ontology/ existence

33. Appeals to theists & atheists
Christians believe that God is love – disciples such as Mother Teresa live a life based on agape
Equally humanists can also live an agapeistic, altruistic life – Christians do not have a monopoly on love.
C.S Lewis said, “Love himself can work in those who know nothing of him.”

34. Person centred People matter and are at the heart of the theory
“How can you love God whom you cannot see if you do not love your neighbour whom you can see.”
Unlike Natural Law, the needs of individuals are not put to one side in preference to laws.

35. Agape is not emotional love
James Childress emphasises the importance of reason in making a decision based upon agape.
Agape is attitudinal, not emotional.
Fletcher applied Bentham’s Hedonic calculus to agape – asserting that the Agapeic Calculus shows how it is possible to work out what love requires in particular situations

36. Love and Justice are compatible
Even though it may be unpopular, love requires speaking for the rights and dignity of those who may be oppressed.
In 2004 Archbishop Desmond Tutu upset Tony Blair and George Bush by calling on them to apologise for their immoral war against Iraq.

37. Agape values struggle Agape is not a self interested love.
It advocates living a life of self sacrifice.
It is through a journey of empathy that the individual comes to terms with who they are and gains greater spiritual understanding into the meaning and purpose of life.
Agape shows that “virtues are better hard won than ready made” Hick

38. Questions
Read page 96
Give seven “unique situations” (case studies) when situation ethics could be used.

39. The problems of Situation Ethics

40. Subjective & Anti-nomian
Agape places too much responsibility on the individual.
The Catholic church argues that people require clear guidelines on how they should behave.
The majority of humanity simply want to be instructed as to which laws they should follow in order to receive salvation – this is what ultimately will make them happy and contented.
The Catholic church argues that clear deontological guidelines are required.

41. Fine in a world of saints
In a Western capitalist meritocracy, where people are valued according to their financial worth, those who freely give their time and expertise may be taken advantage of by others who are more egotistical and underhand.
The whole notion of selfless love is unrealistic- The Hippy festival at Woodstock illustrated that when people come together on mass there is a need for rules and regulations so that people remain happy – someone had to dig the latrines!

42. Too Utopian
Situation Ethics is too utopian a world run on its ethic simply cannot exist.
Situation ethics is simply a dream like vision which is unrealistic for the real world.

43. Agapeic Consequentialism
It faces similar problems to utilitarianism.
An individual needs to assess what will create the most loving thing to do.
Thus it may justify intrinsic evils
An individual is faced with the difficulty of how to predict consequences with accuracy.

44. Ignores personal ties
In life certain people are more important to us than others, e.g. family and friends.
The other types of love: philia, storge are important aspects of the human condition
People also have professional and contractual obligations which may prevent them acting out of agape.

45. Undermines a moral ethos
Western European law reflects a Christian ethos of love. SE ignores such rules & laws.
Western laws demonstrate wisdom and compassion and are ultimately aimed at providing an environment where people may develop and be happy.

46. Situation Ethics ignores the Grace of God
It ignores the fact that God could have a purpose for us that does not rely on us doing all the work.
God may intervene to ensure that good will ultimately come of a particular action even if we cannot see how.

47. Fletcher’s examples
Life is not compatible with being guided exclusively by love: rules and structure are required for everyday living.
SE is not helpful as it does not relate to every-day events and the moral decisions people have to make during most of their life.

48. Proportionalism Hoose and McCormick Allows ontic goods
Dignity, justice, integrity (non moral but essential for making a moral decision).
The best we can aim for is a theology of compromise that recognises that in a fallen world we must sometimes choose between two evils (the lesser).
Occasionally some non-moral evils have to be committed to bring about a greater good.
What is important is to bring about a proportionate amount of good or evil.
So you have rules but it recognises that in a fallen world to break the rules can be the lesser of two evils.

49. Proportionalism Proportionalism is better than SE.
It argues that the deontological perspective of Natural law in the main but would allow rules to be ignored if the loving thing in a particular situation justified such action.
Proportionalism would justify ontic evils if there were a proportionate, greater, good to be achieved.

50. What are the key features of Situation Ethics?
To what extent does the theory succeed?