Human Issues SE

Question 1

How would situation ethics approach euthanasia?

Answer 1

-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, takes a relativist and teleological approach to moral decision-making, judging actions based on whether they bring about agape — selfless, unconditional love
-In the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the theory does not follow any fixed rules or precepts. Instead, it asks what the most loving outcome would be in a particular situation
-Fletcher’s principle of personalism means that people are prioritised over rules, so if helping someone to die ends unbearable suffering and upholds their dignity, then it may be morally right
-Fletcher argued, “Love is the only norm,” meaning that an action like euthanasia is not judged wrong in itself, but by whether it expresses agape. In a case where someone is facing terminal illness and requests a peaceful death, Situation Ethics would support assisted suicide if it relieves suffering and respects the person’s autonomous decision

Question 2

How would situation ethics approach the issue of euthanasia by taking a contextual approach?

Answer 2

-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, takes a relativist and teleological approach to moral decision-making, judging actions based on whether they bring about agape — selfless, unconditional love
-In the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the theory does not follow any fixed rules or precepts. Instead, it asks what the most loving outcome would be in a particular situation
-Fletcher’s principle of personalism means that people are prioritised over rules, so if helping someone to die ends unbearable suffering and upholds their dignity, then it may be morally right
-Fletcher argued, “Love is the only norm,” meaning that an action like euthanasia is not judged wrong in itself, but by whether it expresses agape. In a case where someone is facing terminal illness and requests a peaceful death, Situation Ethics would support assisted suicide if it relieves suffering and respects the person’s autonomous decision.

Question 3

Why would Fletcher argue his approach to euthanasia is the best?

Answer 3

-Supporters of Situation Ethics, founded by Joseph Fletcher, argue that its compassion-based framework is better suited to complex and deeply personal situations like assisted dying
-The theory is built around the principle of agape — selfless, unconditional love — and insists that moral decisions should be guided by what is the most loving outcome in each unique case. -Fletcher famously said, “love is the only norm,” meaning that traditional laws can be set aside if love demands it. In cases of extreme suffering, euthanasia may be justified if it relieves unbearable pain and respects the autonomy of the individual
-For example, in the case of Daniel James, the paralysed rugby player who travelled to Switzerland to end his life, Situation Ethics would likely defend the decision as compassionate, since it prevented prolonged psychological distress and honoured his dignity
-Supporters argue that this kind of case-based, empathetic reasoning is more humane and emotionally intelligent than the strict rules of NML.

Question 4

What is a strength of SE’s approach to euthanasia?

Answer 4

-The core strength of Situation Ethics is its unwavering commitment to love as the only moral norm. Fletcher argued, “Love is the only universal,” and that every ethical decision should be made by asking: what is the most loving thing to do? -In cases of terminal illness, unbearable pain, or complete loss of quality of life, Situation Ethics allows for voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide if it is judged to be the most loving response
-Fletcher’s principle of personalism — prioritising people over laws — ensures that the individual’s dignity, autonomy, and suffering are not ignored for the sake of rule-following. In real-life cases like Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from locked-in syndrome and petitioned for the right to die, Situation Ethics would focus not on whether killing is always wrong, but on whether helping him to die would express compassion and uphold his dignity
-This person-centred and emotionally intelligent framework offers moral agents clarity by returning to one central principle — agape

Question 5

What are weaknesses of SE’s approach to euthanasia?

Answer 5

-Critics may argue that this flexibility makes Situation Ethics too subjective and inconsistent
-Natural Moral Law, for instance, provides fixed moral precepts that clearly oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide on the grounds that they violate the duty to preserve life and the prohibition against killing the innocent
-Aquinas wrote that “to kill an innocent person is intrinsically evil,” and therefore no circumstance could justify it. Under this view, Situation Ethics risks allowing morally dangerous exceptions, especially in legal or medical settings where consistency and boundaries are crucial
-Additionally, opponents argue that the emotional nature of Fletcher’s ethic could allow actions that appear loving but lead to long-term harm or undermine respect for life more generally

Question 6

How could you respond to the weaknesses of SE’s approach to euthanasia?

Answer 6

-However, this critique overlooks how agape provides a consistent moral anchor. Situation Ethics is not simply about emotions or preference; it is about rationally discerning what action most affirms the dignity and wellbeing of the person involved
-Fletcher himself argued that love must be “calculated and thoughtful,” showing that the theory encourages reasoned compassion, not emotional impulsiveness
-While Natural Moral Law may seem more stable, its refusal to allow for any exceptions often leads to morally troubling outcomes — such as prolonging meaningless suffering. In contrast, Situation Ethics adapts to human complexity while remaining grounded in a single principle
-Far from being vague, it offers clarity through context: the right action is always the most loving one, applied with reason and care

Question 7

How could you argue that SE gives a stronger approach to euthanasia than virtue ethics?

Answer 7

-The strength of Situation Ethics lies in its flexibility guided by a single moral principle: agapeic love. Joseph Fletcher argued that “love is the only norm,” meaning that laws, rules, and traditions can be set aside if love demands it
-In cases of terminal illness, extreme suffering, or total loss of dignity, Situation Ethics allows for euthanasia or assisted suicide if it is the most loving and compassionate option
-Fletcher’s principle of personalism places people above laws, ensuring that decisions centre on the needs and wellbeing of the individual, not abstract virtues or social expectations
-For example, in the real-life case of Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from locked-in syndrome and wished to end his life, a situation ethicist would ask: is helping this man die the most loving act? The answer, guided by compassion and rational judgement, may be yes
-This approach provides moral agents with clear reasoning based on love, while still encouraging responsibility and human dignity.

Question 8

How could you respond to people that argue VE has a stronger response to euthanasia than SE?

Answer 8

-flexibility is exactly what makes Virtue Ethics less clear and consistent than Situation Ethics. While it promotes moral growth, it often fails to offer concrete answers to specific ethical dilemmas. In end-of-life decisions, where clarity is urgently needed, Virtue Ethics may leave agents unsure of whether to act or refrain
-Two people could both claim to be virtuous yet reach opposite conclusions — one choosing mercy, the other choosing justice
-In contrast, Situation Ethics offers one consistent principle — agape — which can be applied to all cases while adapting to the individual’s needs
-Fletcher insisted that love must be “calculated and thoughtful,” showing that the theory involves reason as well as compassion
-Unlike the inward focus of Virtue Ethics, which looks at the agent’s character, Situation Ethics directly confronts the situation and offers practical moral direction, especially in emotionally complex areas like euthanasia

Question 9

How would Fletcher’s principles apply to embryo research?

Answer 9

-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s, is a teleological and relativist theory based on agape — selfless, unconditional love
-It rejects legalistic moral rules and instead holds that the right action is whatever produces the most loving outcome in a given situation
-Fletcher wrote, “Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all
-This gives the theory flexibility, allowing moral agents to override traditional moral rules like “do not kill” or “do not interfere with nature” if love demands it
-When applied to embryo research, which often involves the destruction of embryos for medical advancement, Situation Ethics evaluates the action based on its result. If using embryos in research leads to cures for serious illnesses or relieves suffering, the act could be seen as morally justified, as it serves human flourishing and reflects agape

Question 10

How would you apply Fletcher’s principles to embryo research?

Answer 10

-The same reasoning applies to cloning. While religious or rule-based theories might condemn cloning as unnatural, Situation Ethics focuses on whether it promotes love and human dignity
-If reproductive cloning enables an infertile couple to have a child, or if therapeutic cloning helps regenerate tissues to save lives, then these actions may be permitted
-Fletcher’s principles of pragmatism and personalism also shape this approach: moral decisions must be practical, and people must be prioritised over rules
-The act is never judged in isolation but in its context — as Fletcher stated, “Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.” Because of this, Situation Ethics allows for a nuanced, compassionate response to bioethical dilemmas like embryo experimentation and cloning, guided by the overarching principle of love

Question 11

What a key strength of SE’s approach to embryo research and cloning?

Answer 11

-Fletcher argued that “love is the only norm,” meaning all moral decisions should aim at producing the most loving outcome
-Situation Ethics is relativist, but not unprincipled: Fletcher grounded his theory in six fundamental principles, including “love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed,” and four working presumptions such as pragmatism and personalism, the latter affirming that “people are more important than rules”
-In the case of embryo research, Fletcher would reject blanket prohibitions. If research on embryos helps alleviate human suffering, cure disease, or save lives, then — from the standpoint of agape — it can be morally justified. The destruction of an early embryo, which lacks consciousness or awareness, might be permissible if the outcome is genuinely loving. Similarly, therapeutic cloning could be approved if it allows infertile couples to have children or advances life-saving medical treatment
-The theory is action-guiding because it provides a single, consistent moral aim — love — which gives clarity even when traditional rules conflict.

Question 12

What a weakness of SE’s approach to embryo research and cloning?

Answer 12

-However, critics argue that Situation Ethics is too subjective to offer reliable ethical guidance. By placing decision-making entirely in the hands of the individual, the theory can lead to inconsistent and contradictory outcomes
-In embryo research, one agent may believe using embryos for research is loving, while another may feel it is exploitative and unjust
-Without any objective rules or recognition of inherent human dignity, Situation Ethics risks moral relativism. Some also argue that the lack of clarity around when life begins means Situation Ethics has no concrete limit on what kind of embryo destruction could be justified. Compared to Natural Moral Law, which teaches that life begins at conception and offers an absolute ban on embryo destruction, Situation Ethics can seem morally unstable
-Critics like William Barclay warn that “if we insist that in any situation love justifies everything, we leave ourselves without any moral compass.”

Question 13

How would you respond to a weakness of SE’s approach to embryo research and cloning?

Answer 13

-the flexibility of Situation Ethics is not a weakness but a strength, especially in modern bioethics where rigid rules may produce cold or inhumane outcomes
-While Natural Moral Law may condemn embryo research under all circumstances, even when it could save thousands of lives, Situation Ethics considers the people involved and the consequences of the action. Fletcher insisted that “the morality of an action depends on the situation,” not on unbending laws
-He opposed the idea that rules are more important than people and believed that moral agents should be trusted to make loving decisions when guided by reason and responsibility
-Where Virtue Ethics asks what a good person might do, and Natural Law asks what nature demands, Situation Ethics asks: what helps others the most? This clarity of focus — always aiming for agape — allows for compassionate and morally coherent responses to the complex realities of embryo use and cloning in a way that prioritises human welfare over rigid doctrine

Question 14

How could you argue SE gives a better approach to embryo research and cloning than VE?

Answer 14

-moral depth is exactly what makes Virtue Ethics unclear in practice
-It offers no rule or moral principle to apply — only an appeal to character
-Two people could disagree on what a “virtuous” person would do in the same situation and still both claim to be right
-As Julia Annas notes, “Virtue theory does not tell us what to do; it tells us what sort of person to be.” In cases like embryo research or cloning, where lives and technologies are at stake, this is not enough
-Situation Ethics provides a single moral standard — agape — and insists it must be applied responsibly to each case. Fletcher’s principles, including “love and justice are the same,” give clear direction without the rigidity of deontological theories or the vagueness of Virtue Ethics. This makes Situation Ethics not only morally serious, but also practically useful.

Question 16

How you argue that SE’s approach to situation ethics is better than NML?

Answer 16

-Supporters of Situation Ethics argue that it better reflects the complexities of real-world scenarios by focusing on agape — unconditional love
-Joseph Fletcher believed that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all,” and argued that rules can be broken if love demands it
-In cases of embryo research, the potential to save lives through medical breakthroughs may be seen as the most loving outcome
-A Situation Ethicist might argue that destroying embryos for the sake of curing terminal illnesses is justified if it promotes human flourishing and relieves suffering
-The flexibility of the theory is seen by some as a strength, allowing individuals to respond sensitively and compassionately to unique moral situations.

Question 17

What is SE’s approach to theft and lying?

Answer 17

-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s, is a teleological and relativist theory that bases all moral decision-making on agape — selfless, unconditional love
-Fletcher rejected legalistic moral systems that treat acts like lying and theft as intrinsically wrong, arguing instead that moral rules should be set aside when love demands it. He wrote, “Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all
-Therefore, actions such as lying or stealing are not inherently immoral — they are judged right or wrong depending on whether they produce the most loving outcome in a given context
-For example, lying to protect a friend from harm or stealing food to save a starving family could be morally justified if they promote human wellbeing
-Situation Ethics offers six fundamental principles and four working presumptions, including pragmatism, personalism, and relativism, which help moral agents apply love practically rather than legalistically

Question 18

What’s SE’s approach to theft and lying using Mrs Bergmeier ?

Answer 18

-Fletcher’s approach applies clearly to ethical situations involving deception or theft. Rather than follow absolute rules, the moral agent must evaluate what best serves agape in that moment
-A famous example used by Fletcher is that of Mrs Bergmeier, who was held in a Russian prison during WWII. She deliberately committed adultery in order to become pregnant and be released to reunite with her family
-While the act broke traditional moral codes, Fletcher argued that it was the most loving action available — and therefore, morally right. The same logic applies to lying and theft. If breaking a rule helps protect the vulnerable or serves the good of others, it is permitted
-This approach prioritises human welfare and flexibility over duty or fixed law, giving individuals responsibility to assess the most loving response, even in difficult or unconventional circumstances

Question 19

Why would SE give a better approach to theft and lying than NML?

Answer 19

-defenders of Situation Ethics argue that its focus on love makes it a more morally responsive approach in exceptional cases
-Joseph Fletcher argued that “love is the only norm,” and rules such as “do not lie” or “do not steal” can be broken if agape demands it. In the well-known case of Mrs Bergmeier, a woman imprisoned in a Russian camp during WWII chose to commit adultery so she would become pregnant and be sent home to her family
-Fletcher used this to show that breaking moral rules could be justified if it produced the most loving outcome. In the same way, lying to protect someone’s life, or stealing food to prevent a child from starving, might be permitted under Situation Ethics
-Supporters argue that this flexibility makes it more compassionate and realistic than the rigid absolutes of NML.

Question 20

What a key strength of SE’s approach to theft and lying?

Answer 20

-A key strength of Situation Ethics is that it evaluates moral dilemmas by asking a simple, consistent question: “What is the most loving thing to do?” Fletcher argued that “love is the only norm,” and that rules like “do not steal” or “do not lie” can be overridden when they prevent loving outcomes
-This clarity of focus allows the theory to adapt to circumstances without losing coherence. For example, lying to protect someone from harm or stealing food to save a starving family would be morally justified under Situation Ethics
-The well-known case of Mrs Bergmeier illustrates this principle: imprisoned in a Russian camp during WWII, she chose to commit adultery so she would become pregnant and be sent home to reunite with her family
-Though the act broke traditional rules, it served love, and therefore was the right decision under Fletcher’s framework
-This shows that even when rules are broken, the theory remains clear about the moral aim — love.

Question 21

What is a weakness of SE’s approach to theft and lying?

Answer 21

-Critics argue that Situation Ethics is too relativistic, relying on personal interpretation of love. Because it allows moral rules to be set aside, opponents claim it leads to inconsistency: what one person sees as loving, another may see as harmful
.-Inthe case of lying, for instance, it could be unclear whether a particular deception preserves trust or undermines it in the long run. Without fixed rules, they argue, the theory cannot offer reliable ethical guidance, especially in legal or public contexts where clarity is vital

Question 22

What would Fletcher say in response to the weaknesses of SE’s approach to theft and lying?

Answer 22

-this criticism misunderstands the structure of Situation Ethics. -Fletcher did not abandon all moral reasoning — he offered six principles and four working presumptions that guide how love should be appli
-. These include pragmatism, personalism, and relativism — not moral chaos, but sensitivity to context. In every case, the guideline remains the same: act to serve agape
-Unlike Virtue Ethics, which requires deep reflection on character, or Natural Moral Law, which may rigidly forbid compassionate actions, Situation Ethics offers one simple moral anchor that applies across all dilemmas. Far from being unclear, this focus on love offers moral direction that is both principled and adaptable.

Question 23

How could you argue SE has a better approach to theft and lying than VE?

Answer 23

-it is exactly this depth that makes Virtue Ethics less clear in urgent moral decisions. It offers no fixed rules or universal answers — just encouragement to reflect on character and use practical wisdom (phronesis)
-This may work in slow, reflective settings, but when faced with difficult decisions like whether to lie to save a life, it provides little guidance. Situation Ethics, by contrast, offers a clear action-guiding principle — always act to promote agape
-Fletcher supported this with six principles and four working presumptions to avoid moral confusion. While Virtue Ethics leaves decisions open to interpretation, Situation Ethics gives moral agents one unchanging criterion by which to assess any action. This makes it more consistent and clearer in practice.

Question 24

How would SE approach the issue of capital punishment? (Agape)

Answer 24

-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher in the 1960s, is a teleological and relativist theory that bases moral decision-making on the principle of agape — selfless, unconditional love
-Fletcher believed that rigid laws could not account for the complexity of real-life situations, and that each moral decision should be guided by what is the most loving thing to do
-In capital punishment cases, this means evaluating the consequences and motives behind the execution, rather than following an absolute rule
-Fletcher stated that “love is the only norm,” meaning laws and traditional moral codes can be set aside if love requires it. This gives Situation Ethics flexibility: while it could potentially allow capital punishment if it prevents greater harm, it would typically reject it if it promotes cruelty, revenge, or fails to respect the dignity of human life.

Question 25

How would SE approach the issue of capital punishment? (Key principles)

Answer 25

-Fletcher’s theory is grounded in six fundamental principles and four working presumptions, such as pragmatism (what works in love is right) and personalism (people are more important than rules) -These guide moral agents to prioritise human welfare and dignity. Applied to capital punishment, the theory would likely oppose the death penalty in many modern cases — especially where systems are flawed or rehabilitation is possible -Fletcher opposed legalism and argued that justice is “love distributed,” suggesting that punishment must be shaped by compassion rather than retribution. In wrongful conviction cases like Timothy Evans, Situation Ethics would clearly condemn execution as an unloving and irreversible act. Rather than depending on traditional authority or moral absolutes, the theory puts human relationships and wellbeing at the centre of moral judgement

Question 26

How would you argue that SE gives a clear response to capital punishment?

Answer 26

-Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, is based on the principle that “only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all.” Rather than following fixed rules, the theory asks whether a particular action is the most loving thing in that situation -In the case of capital punishment, Situation Ethics would not offer a blanket response. It would assess the circumstances carefully: in a situation where executing someone would prevent further violence or protect many lives, it might be justified -But if the punishment is motivated by revenge, or risks killing an innocent person, it would be rejected as unloving. Fletcher’s principle of personalism — that “people are more important than rules” — ensures that human dignity always comes first -This flexibility gives Situation Ethics a consistent moral lens, even when applied to emotionally or socially charged cases like the death penalty

Question 27

What would a weakness of SE’s approach to capital punishment?

Answer 27

-Critics may argue that Situation Ethics is too vague and lacks consistency. Because it does not rely on firm rules, different people might interpret “the most loving thing” in completely opposite ways -One judge might consider the death penalty as loving because it protects society, while another might see it as an unforgivable act. Compared to Natural Moral Law, which gives a more predictable response — that capital punishment is sometimes acceptable to preserve justice and social order — Situation Ethics may seem subjective and uncertain -William Barclay warned that if morality depends entirely on context, “we are left with a terrifying degree of individual moral responsibility,” where anyone could justify anything if they claim it is loving.

Question 28

How would you respond to people who disagree with SE’s approach to capital punishment?

Answer 28

-criticism misunderstands the strength of Situation Ethics. While it does allow for flexibility, it is not without structure -Agape is not vague — it is a rational, deliberate principle that can be applied with consistency and compassion -Unlike Natural Moral Law, which may permit execution even when rehabilitation is possible, Situation Ethics always asks whether the punishment contributes to human flourishing -In cases where capital punishment promotes fear, systemic injustice, or irreversible harm, it would be clearly rejected. Fletcher’s principle of personalism — that “people are more important than rules” — ensures that every life is treated with dignity, even the life of the offender -This gives a clearer, more humane response in a world where legal systems are often flawed and punishment can easily become dehumanising.

Question 29

How could you argue against people that say NML has a clearer approach to capital punishment than SE?

Answer 29

-structure is not as clear as it seems. NML contains an internal contradiction: while it supports capital punishment under the precept of social order, it also upholds the absolute duty to preserve life -These two precepts conflict in the case of execution, and the theory gives no clear priority between them. Modern Catholic teaching has shifted decisively away from supporting the death penalty, with Pope Francis stating it is “inadmissible,” highlighting the growing inconsistency within NML’s application -In contrast, Situation Ethics avoids this confusion by applying one consistent standard: what promotes agape. Fletcher’s framework allows capital punishment only when it is the most loving response — and usually, given the value of rehabilitation and the possibility of error, it would not be -This makes Situation Ethics more ethically coherent and adaptable in modern legal systems.

Question 30

How could you argue against people that say VE has a clearer approach to capital punishment than SE?

Answer 30

-supporters of Situation Ethics would argue that its focus on agapeic love offers a more morally consistent and contextually responsive approach to capital punishment. -Rooted in Joseph Fletcher’s principle of doing the most loving thing, Situation Ethics prioritises human dignity and compassion over fixed traits or social expectations. Unlike Virtue Ethics, which may vary depending on interpretations of what constitutes “justice” or “mercy,” Situation Ethics provides a single guiding principle — selfless love — that rejects punitive actions motivated by retribution. Fletcher himself opposed the death penalty, arguing that it fails to uphold unconditional love and treats people as means to an end AIn a legal system often marred by bias, inequality, and error, capital punishment may cause more harm than good. Situation Ethics would reject it not simply because it lacks compassion, but because it cannot be justified as the most loving response when rehabilitation, forgiveness, or reform could offer more redemptive alternatives. This makes SE more principled and inclusive than VE, which risks subjectivity and cultural bias when deciding what a “virtuous” person would do.

Question 31

How would situation ethics approach the issue of abortion?

Answer 31

Situation Ethics, developed by Joseph Fletcher, is a teleological and relativist ethical theory that focuses on doing the most loving thing in each situation. -The theory rejects absolute moral rules and instead uses agape — selfless, unconditional love — as the only guiding principle. When applied to abortion, Situation Ethics does not provide a fixed answer but instead considers the context and consequences -Fletcher argued that “love is the only norm,” meaning that abortion may be morally right if it prevents greater suffering or upholds the dignity and wellbeing of those involved. For example, in cases of rape, financial hardship, or risk to the mother’s mental health, abortion may be permitted if continuing the pregnancy would cause serious harm. Rather than appealing to biological facts or fixed doctrines, Situation Ethics asks whether the action reflects love for all those affected.

Question 32

How would situation ethics approval abortion by looking at personalisn?

Answer 32

-Another key feature of Situation Ethics is personalism — the idea that people come before rules. Fletcher believed that moral laws, such as “do not kill,” could be set aside if love demanded it -In the case of abortion, the theory would prioritise the mother’s wellbeing and overall human flourishing. Fletcher’s principle of pragmatism also plays a role, meaning actions must work in practice to be considered morally good. If bringing a pregnancy to term would result in unbearable suffering, both for the mother and potential child, abortion could be seen as the most practical and loving option. This context-sensitive approach allows for a flexible moral judgement that avoids rigid condemnation -As Fletcher put it, “we are always commanded to act lovingly, but how we do it depends on the situation.” Therefore, Situation Ethics offers a compassionate, case-by-case response to abortion that prioritises love over absolute rules.

Question 33

What’s a key weakness of SE’s approach to abortion?

Answer 33

-Situation Ethics bases morality on the principle of doing the most loving thing in each individual situation. Fletcher claimed, “the situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s need.” In theory, this makes the approach responsive to human suffering — for example, abortion might be permitted in cases of rape, severe disability, or financial instability if it is seen as the most loving outcome -However, this is exactly what makes the theory unclear. What one person interprets as loving, another might see as harmful or unjust. Because there are no absolute moral rules — not even a consistent stance on the value of unborn life — the theory provides little certainty. In one case abortion might be loving; in another, it might not -The result is moral inconsistency. Especially in matters of life and death, such as abortion, a theory that changes from case to case risks becoming ethically unstable Rebuttal: -this so-called strength is precisely what undermines Situation Ethics’ clarity. The theory leaves all decision-making to individual judgement, meaning two people in similar circumstances could reach entirely different conclusions. Unlike Natural Moral Law, which provides a firm boundary based on the sanctity of life, Situation Ethics offers no definite protection for the unborn -It does not define when life begins, whether the foetus has moral status, or when abortion becomes unjustifiable. In emotionally charged cases, this can lead to decisions based on fear, pressure, or confusion rather than moral principle -Fletcher’s commitment to love becomes vague in practice, as it provides no way to measure or verify what “the most loving action” actually is. Therefore, while it may appear compassionate, the theory ultimately fails to offer the clarity and consistency needed for a strong ethical response to abortion.

Question 34

How could u argue that SE’s approach to abortion is not weak?

Answer 34

_Supporters of Situation Ethics argue that this flexibility is a strength rather than a flaw. It allows individuals to take context seriously and act with compassion, rather than follow rigid rules that ignore human pain. Fletcher saw agape as inclusive, claiming that love “is justice distributed” — so abortion could be permitted if it creates a more just outcome for all involved, particularly the mother -In cases where the mother’s physical or mental health is at risk, or where the child would be born into severe suffering, Situation Ethics allows for mercy and practical moral reasoning. J.A.T. Robinson also praised this situational approach, arguing in Honest to God that “love alone, when well-served, is always right and just.” To its defenders, this makes the theory more humane and emotionally intelligent than absolutist approaches

Question 35

How could your argue SE’s approach to abortion is better than NML?

Answer 35

-supporters of Situation Ethics argue that it provides a more compassionate and person-centred approach. Joseph Fletcher built the theory around the principle of agape, or selfless love, and argued that moral decisions should aim for the most loving outcome in each unique situation -Fletcher claimed, “the situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s need.” From this perspective, abortion might be justified if it avoids psychological trauma, financial instability, or if continuing the pregnancy would be harmful to the mother -Because it rejects absolute rules, Situation Ethics would allow abortion if it was the most loving outcome, prioritising human well-being over fixed doctrine. Supporters see this as more emotionally intelligent and responsive to real-life ethical complexity.

Question 36

How could your argue SE’s approach to abortion is better than VE?

Answer 36

-it is precisely this inward-looking focus that makes Virtue Ethics less clear than Situation Ethics -The theory provides no objective criteria for what the virtuous action is in abortion cases — it depends on the individual’s interpretation of virtues like courage, justice, or compassion, which may conflict. What one person sees as brave, another might see as selfish -This ambiguity can leave individuals unsure of how to act, especially in morally urgent situations like crisis pregnancies -By contrast, Situation Ethics cuts through this uncertainty with a single guiding question: “what is the most loving thing to do here?” While still flexible, this focus gives clearer direction, especially when time, wellbeing, and real-life consequences are at stake. As J.A.T. Robinson noted, “love is the ruling norm of Christian ethics,” and it is this norm that makes Situation Ethics more decisive than the character-based reflection of Virtue Ethics.