SITUATION ETHICS - AGAINST

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

• situation ethics - relativist theory also called the ‘middle way’ theory based on agape love
• not useful because –> we cant achieve agape love, theory is too flexible and is too focused on consequences

Question 2

P1

Answer 2

P- we cant achieve agape love
A- human limitations, selfish desires and emotional biases - eg. only person to see car crash and you could go save there person but you don’t because the car is starting to catch on fire and you want to save yourself
C- Fletcher - Jesus could achieve it so we can too, if we cant we can still strive towards the idea of it
E- theory based on assumptions –> not reliable

Question 3

P2

Answer 3

P- Too flexible
A- easy to manipulate and change for desired outcomes and also causes to have inconsistent results -Someone could justify stealing from a company by claiming it’s loving to help their family, but Situation Ethics risks being manipulated as ‘love’ is subjective.
C- Fletcher would argue that true agape love is selfless and impartial, so actions like theft would only be justified if they genuinely served the well-being of all affected, not just the person stealing.
E- Fletcher’s intention was for agape to prevent selfish actions, in practice it’s hard to guarantee people will apply it fairly. WOULD ONLY WORK IN A WORLD FULL OF SAINTS - ARCLEYS

Question 4

P3

Answer 4

P- Too consequentialist
A- 6 principles - “end justifies the means” - we cant predict the future eg. call in friend who doesn’t want to come to school to come to school because it is in our best interest that your friend gets a good education but the school catches on fire and friend gets hurt.
C- Fletcher- it is wrong because it ended up with your friend getting hurt
E- cant predict the future - too unreliable to focus and base are actions on

Question 5

Conclusion

Answer 5

strong thesis argue again wht you have said throughout the essay and restate the quesition