Is Fletcher’s understanding of agape really religious? Flashcards
(9 cards)
Introduction
+ LOA
Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics revolves around the concept of agape, defined as selfless, unconditional Christian love. While Fletcher presents agape as rooted in the Christian tradition, his ethical system has been criticised for departing from biblical commandments, traditional Christian theology, and the authority of Jesus. This essay will assess whether Fletcher’s understanding of agape can truly be called religious, especially Christian, or whether it merely borrows theological language to frame a humanist, relativistic ethic.
The argument will be that while Fletcher’s ethics uses Christian terminology, its relativism, individualism, and rejection of biblical authority render it insufficiently religious in a traditional Christian sense.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1: Fletcher’s situation ethics and the religious basis of agape
Paragraph 1: Fletcher’s situation ethics and the religious basis of agape
A01
• Fletcher rejects both legalism (rule-based ethics) and antinomianism (no rules).
• Proposes situationism, where the only guiding principle is agape – selfless, Christian neighbour-love.
• Ethics is contextual and assessed by the loving outcome.
• Four working principles: pragmatism, relativism, positivism, personalism – all direct moral reasoning toward agape.
Six fundamental principles clarify agape as:
• the only intrinsic good,
• the ruling norm of Christian ethics,
• equivalent to justice,
• neighbour-focused regardless of feeling,
• justifying the means,
• decided situationally.
Example: killing a baby to save a family if it is the loving thing to do.
Paragraph 1: Fletcher’s situation ethics and the religious basis of agape
A02
• At face value, Fletcher’s ethics appears religious. It takes inspiration from Jesus’ teaching that love is the greatest commandment (Mark 12:31).
• Positivism requires a faith-based acceptance of agape as the moral centre, which seems to affirm a theological commitment.
• However, Fletcher redefines conscience not as a divine or God-given guide (as in Aquinas) but as a process of moral reasoning. This humanises and internalises moral judgement.
• Similarly, while agape is described as Christian, Fletcher allows any action, even murder, if it brings about love. This utilitarian logic undermines religious absolutes such as “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).
• As such, Fletcher’s agape becomes instrumentalised: a tool for assessing outcomes, rather than a divinely mandated virtue.
Therefore, although Fletcher’s language is religious, the substance is individualistic, consequentialist and relativistic, which are traits more associated with secular humanism than traditional religious ethics.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2: Christian objections: Is agape without commandments still religious?
Paragraph 2: Christian objections: Is agape without commandments still religious?
A01
• Traditional Christians (e.g., sola scriptura adherents) argue that Fletcher undermines Christianity by dismissing biblical commandments.
• Jesus gave other instructions (e.g. “If you love me, keep my commandments” – John 14:15). To prioritise only agape seems selective.
• Romans 3:8 condemns doing evil so good may result – directly conflicting with Fletcher’s ends-justify-means principle.
• Pope Pius XII and Richard Mouw argue that Fletcher’s theory attacks Christ by implying Jesus’ other teachings are irrelevant.
• Critics argue agape is too subjective – even Nazis thought they were acting lovingly.
• Barclay: humans are not saintly enough to handle such autonomy – without laws, they become corrupt (Lord of the Flies, Zimbardo, failed states).
• Fletcher claims to follow Jesus’ example – who overturned rules and prioritised love.
• J. A. T. Robinson defends situation ethics: humanity has “come of age” and no longer needs rigid rules.
Paragraph 2: Christian objections: Is agape without commandments still religious?
A02
• Fletcher’s reliance on a liberal view of scripture—claiming love is the Bible’s ultimate theme—fails to resolve interpretive subjectivity. Love may be the theme, but interpretation of that theme varies wildly.
• Jesus may have broken some laws (e.g., Sabbath), but He affirmed others. The notion that He supported situational morality over all else is textually inconsistent.
• Robinson’s defence is optimistic but utopian. The view that people will always choose love if granted autonomy contradicts human behaviour in history, psychology (Zimbardo), and literature.
• Thus, Fletcher’s theory leads toward moral anarchy: despite its invocation of agape, it behaves functionally like antinomianism.
• The subjectivity critique is crucial. Even agape, as Fletcher defines it, is dependent on personal conscience—which he describes as a process, not divine guidance. This makes moral outcomes unverifiable and inconsistent.
• As C. Hitchens argues, how one loves oneself is culturally formed and morally ambiguous. Therefore, loving your neighbour as yourself is not necessarily virtuous.
• Consequently, Fletcher’s ethic cannot be reliably grounded in divine authority, undermining its claim to be religious in any robust, Christian sense.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Fletcher’s situation ethics is not truly religious in any traditional sense. While it draws on Christian language and symbols—particularly agape—it fundamentally departs from Christian orthodoxy by denying divine moral absolutes, rejecting scriptural authority, and grounding ethics in human reason and context.
Agape becomes a human-centred, consequentialist ideal, not a command rooted in divine will. The subjective, individualistic, and relativist nature of his ethics reveals a humanist core disguised in Christian rhetoric. Therefore, Fletcher’s understanding of agape is not really religious, but rather a secular ethic cloaked in theological language.
LOA summary
Fletcher’s situation ethics fails to be genuinely religious because it reinterprets agape into a secular, relativistic principle rather than treating it as a divine command.
While it superficially echoes Jesus’ teaching, it rejects the necessary structure of Christian moral theology—commandments, scripture, and objective divine authority. In doing so, it strips agape of its religious context and reduces it to a subjective human tool, thus severing it from the religious tradition it claims to represent.
