Is there a danger posed by making moral decision-making entirely individualistic and subjective Flashcards
(11 cards)
Introduction
The question of whether moral decision-making should be individualistic and subjective is central to ethical theories such as Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics, which prioritises the principle of agape (selfless Christian love) over rigid rule-following. Fletcher proposes a radical freedom in moral reasoning, rejecting both legalism and antinomianism in favour of a context-sensitive middle ground. While this allows for personal responsibility and compassion, it raises concerns regarding the stability, reliability, and objectivity of moral guidance.
This essay will assess whether situation ethics’ reliance on subjective love undermines its moral credibility and leads to dangerous outcomes, ultimately arguing that the theory’s commitment to individualism risks devolving into moral chaos and cannot provide a robust framework for ethical decision-making.
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1 – The Autonomy of Situation Ethics and the Risk of Antinomianism
Paragraph 1 – The Autonomy of Situation Ethics and the Risk of Antinomianism
AO1: Outline of situation ethics and its emphasis on subjectivity
• Fletcher rejects both legalism (strict rule-following) and antinomianism (no rules at all), proposing instead situationism, where actions are judged based on whether they produce agape.
• Agape is the only intrinsic good; all other values are judged in relation to it.
• Fletcher’s four working principles (pragmatism, personalism, positivism, relativism) and six fundamental principles all reinforce that the right thing to do depends on the context and love-based outcome.
• Illustrative example: the “crying baby” scenario, where killing the child may be the most loving action.
Paragraph 1 – The Autonomy of Situation Ethics and the Risk of Antinomianism
AO2: Evaluation – Does this autonomy become dangerous?
Strength: J.A.T. Robinson defends situation ethics, arguing that humanity has “come of age” and can be trusted with greater moral responsibility due to higher levels of education and civilisation.
Criticism: William Barclay strongly disagrees, arguing that humanity still needs protective moral structures. Fletcher gives too much autonomy, risking selfishness or moral corruption. History and psychology support this view:
• When systems collapse (e.g. Canada police strike, failed states), chaos ensues.
• Stanford Prison Experiment shows how power can corrupt.
• Literature like Lord of the Flies illustrates the descent into savagery when rules are abandoned.
• Analysis: These examples reveal the limits of individual moral reasoning. Fletcher’s system presupposes a level of moral maturity and consistency that is rarely matched in reality. Without a shared moral structure, ethics becomes dangerously arbitrary.
Paragraph 1 – The Autonomy of Situation Ethics and the Risk of Antinomianism
Mini conclusion
Fletcher’s emphasis on individual judgement may avoid rigid legalism, but in doing so, it courts the very antinomianism he warns against. The danger of subjectivity here is not just theoretical—it is backed by psychological and sociological evidence.
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 – Subjectivity, Christianity, and the Coherence of Fletcher’s Ethics
Paragraph 2 – Subjectivity, Christianity, and the Coherence of Fletcher’s Ethics
AO1: Christian foundations of Fletcher’s theory and the subjectivity issue
• Fletcher claims to base his theory on Jesus’ teachings, especially the commandment to “love your neighbour”.
• He interprets agape as the central biblical theme and justifies disregarding other commandments (e.g. on killing or adultery) if love requires it.
• Fletcher also redefines conscience not as a divine faculty (as Aquinas thought) but as a verb: the process of working out the most loving action.
Paragraph 2 – Subjectivity, Christianity, and the Coherence of Fletcher’s Ethics
AO2: Evaluation – Does this subjectivity distort Christianity and moral reasoning?
Criticism (Biblical authority): Critics like Pope Pius XII and Richard Mouw argue that Fletcher selectively follows Jesus’ teachings. If agape is the only commandment that matters, the rest of Jesus’ moral guidance becomes redundant.
Romans 3:8 condemns doing evil that good may result—undermining Fletcher’s claim that the ends justify the means.
Counter: Fletcher argues Jesus prioritised love over rules, allowing Sabbath-breaking and replacing “eye for an eye” with forgiveness. His ethics may therefore reflect the spirit rather than the letter of Jesus’ teachings.
Evaluation: This defence fails to resolve the issue. Reducing Christian morality to one principle leaves it vulnerable to subjective interpretation. Even if agape is central, it doesn’t follow that it overrides all other commands.
Criticism (Subjectivity): C. Hitchens challenges the clarity of agape itself. Loving your neighbour “as yourself” is problematic if self-love is distorted. The Nazi who would prefer to die than be Jewish shows how warped self-love can lead to perverse moral choices.
Fletcher’s response: Agape is distinct from mere emotional or preferential love—it is universal and selfless.
Final critique: But agape still depends on human interpretation. What one person sees as love may appear deeply harmful to another. Thus, even agape remains a subjective and unstable foundation for ethics.
Paragraph 2 – Subjectivity, Christianity, and the Coherence of Fletcher’s Ethics
Mini conclusion
Mini-conclusion: Fletcher’s appeal to Christian love fails to establish an objective ethical framework. His use of scripture is selective, and his reliance on individual understanding of agape exposes his theory to the very dangers it claims to avoid—namely inconsistency, moral error, and potential harm.
Conclusion
Fletcher’s situation ethics attempts to forge a compassionate and flexible alternative to legalism by centring moral decision-making on the principle of agape. However, this radical subjectivity ultimately undermines the theory’s credibility and coherence.
Whether judged from a psychological, sociological, theological, or philosophical perspective, it becomes clear that making moral decision-making entirely individualistic poses a serious danger. Without a shared moral framework or objective anchor, ethics becomes vulnerable to personal bias, emotional distortion, and even systemic harm.
The most convincing conclusion is that while moral reasoning must involve context and compassion, it cannot be entirely subjective—some degree of shared moral standards is necessary for a functioning and just society.
LOA
While Fletcher’s theory offers a morally sincere alternative to rigid legalism, it overcorrects by relying too heavily on individual judgement.
This invites moral instability and opens the door to antinomianism. Therefore, the danger of making moral decision-making entirely subjective is not merely theoretical but demonstrable, and Fletcher’s situation ethics proves this through its own internal tensions.
