Situation Ethics - Arguments Flashcards
(13 cards)
Give the argument that agape is an objective moral principle
Who: Fletcher was a liberal Christian trying to make religion compatible with non-religious thought
What: Agape is effective for moral decision making because it is an objective guiding principle.
Why:
Premise 1: Agape is an objective guiding principle.
This is plausible because agape eliminates the need for context-specific rules by directing moral agents to act with love in all situations - which is easily understood and applicable despite cultural, situational or personal differences.
Premise 2: If agape is an objective guiding principle then agape is effective for moral decision making.
This is plausible because a universal central principle ensures consistency across moral decisions and the simplicity of agape avoids the complexity of navigating conflicting or conditional rules.
Conclusion: Agape is effective for moral decision making.
Example: This can be exemplified by the application of situation ethics to the case of sacrificial adultery. When choosing between adultery and never seeing your family again, situation ethics avoids the conflict and encourages the most loving action - committing adultery so you can leave the POW camp and see your family.
Generalising, situation ethics avoids conflict in difficult moral situations with its objective central principle of agape.
Give the argument agape is too abstract
Who: Critic of situation ethics, seeing it as too permissive.
What: Agape is a central principle because it is too abstract, thus enabling inevitable exploitation of the autonomy it provides because of our divided will
Why:
Premise 1: Situation ethics asks us to make up our own minds in the situation about
whether something is right or wrong
This is plausible because we are only guided by the principle of agape to make our decisions in situation ethics; to will good for your neighbour and be selflessly loving towards them.
Premise 2: If situation ethics asks us to make up our own minds in the situation about whether something is right or wrong, then it will lead to frequent cases of exploitation of autonomy.
This is plausible because of our divided will in our postlapsarian state. Actions such as extramarital sex without the person’s wife knowing can be justified with agape as doing the most loving thing for your mistress and yourself - and this is obviously morally wrong according to our intuition however because of our divided will we will continue to justify these actions.
Conclusion: Situation ethics will lead to frequent cases of exploitation of autonomy.
Example: This view can be exemplified with the notion of sex under the influence. A person could justify having sex while drunk as the most loving action using the principle of agape - although generally speaking a person is not able to consent while drunk. Generalising, people will end up justifying things that are obviously morally wrong using the principle of agape - exploiting the autonomy it provides.
Give the argument that legalism proposed by Barclay is bad
Who: General response, perhaps from antinomianism.
What: Although agape is abstract, the alternative of strict legalism is worse.
Why: In a nutshell, agape may be abstract to follow and there may be cases of people exploiting the autonomy it provides - however - an ethical framework of strict legalism runs the risks of conflicting situations. For example, in the case of sacrificial adultery where Mrs Bergmeier had to choose between extramarital sex and staying in a POW camp for the rest of her life - a legalist approach would have her stay in the camp and never see her family again which according to our moral intuitions seems wrong.
Give the argument the 4WP are helpful
Who: Fletcher was a liberal Christian trying to make religion compatible with non-religious thought
What: The four working principles are effective for moral decision making because they enable application of agape.
Why:
Premise 1: The four working principles enable application of agape.
This is plausible because the principles of pragmatism, positivism, relativism and personalism guide us to know what the most loving outcome should look like. For example the principle of pragmatism allows us to effectively apply agape by considering if our actions would be suitable and actable in everyday life.
Premise 2: If the four working principles enable application of agape, then they are effective for moral decision making.
This is plausible because it prevents situation ethics from being purely subjective, as if one truly stops and contemplates the four working principles they enable everyone practicing the ethic to reach the same conclusion on what the most loving outcome is - allowing for consistent moral decision making.
Conclusion: The four working principles are effective for moral decision making.
Example: This view can be exemplified with the notion of donating to charity. When considering the notion ‘everyone should donate to charity every day’, someone contemplating the four working principles could understand that although it seems like the most loving action - it is not pragmatic as not everyone has the ability to donate money due to their own financial situation and thus tweak the notion to accommodate for that, for example: ‘everyone should donate to charity when they are able to’.
Give the argument that the four working principles are a slippery slope to relativism ethics
Who: Liberal theologian
What: Situation ethics falls too closely to relativism ethics due to the lack of objectivity.
Why:
Premise 1: Situation ethics allows people to decide what is right and wrong when employing the four working principles.
This is plausible because the point of the four working principles is to be used by people in each situation - so naturally people can decide the most loving outcome from their understanding of the situation through the lenses of these working principles.
Premise 2: If situation ethics allows people to decide what is right and wrong when employing the four working principles, then it is a slippery slope to relativism ethics.
This is plausible by example. One of the four working principles is in fact relativism, so in a situation such as the case of a teenager dating an adult, although our immediate response is to say it is morally wrong - a person applying the principle of relativism coulda argue that since there shouldn’t be any fixed rules - the relationship isn’t morally wrong which doesn’t agree with our moral intuitions.
Conclusion: Situation ethics is a slippery slope to relativism ethics.
Example: This view can be exemplified with the case of interfaith dialogue. While we can agree the morally right thing to do is respect someone’s views, a christian employing the principle of positivism could argue that it is their duty as a christian to spread the gospel and encourage people to turn to christ. Generalising, the four working principles allow for a slippery slope to relativism ethics.
Give the argument that the 6FP complete the 4WP
Who: Fletcher
What: it says in the title
Why: In a nutshell, Fletcher argued that the 6 fundamental principles paired with the 4 working principles and the principle of agape holistically form an ethic that cannot be skewed to relativism and ensure a consistent, selfless, loving outcome in every situation - unable to be exploited for one’s personal goals.
Give the argument that agape is the greatest commmandment.
What: Love is God’s greatest commandment so it is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
Why:
Premise 1: Love is God’s greatest commandment
This is plausible as that is what it says directly in the Bible in Matthew 22:36-40.
Premise 2: If love is God’s greatest commandment then it is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
This is plausible because by being the greatest commandment, all other commandments are simply a secondary commandment which enacts love. For example, ‘thou shall not kill’ is just an extension of ‘love thy neighbour’ as killing someone is quite far removed from loving them as God’s wills us to. Agape then is a good central principle because it is the enactment of the will of God.
Conclusion: Love is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
Example: This view can be exemplified by assessing an action. According to God’s will we should do the most loving action and only that is intrinsically morally good - agape tells us to do the most loving outcome in every situation, thus enacting God’s will.
Give the argument that Fletcher commits eisegesis.
Who: Natural law theorists
What: Fletcher commits eisegesis and is ignorant of the legalistic laws of the Bible.
Why:
Premise 1: Jesus upheld legalistic Mosaic law.
This is plausible as in Matthew 5:17, Jesus says “I have not come to abolish the law of the prophets, but to fulfill it”. Jesus himself states that his law will not replace the legalistic laws of the old testament but rather be a fulfillment of them - which implies that the laws of the old testament are primary to the laws of the new testament.
Premise 2: If Jesus upheld legalistic Mosaic law, then Fletcher commits eisegesis.
This is plausible because Fletcher chooses to ignore this aspect of scripture, instead focusing only what Jesus said about love and deriving his central moral principle of agape from only that piece of scripture - committing eisegesis by selectively picking what parts of the Bible are relevant and which are not.
Conclusion: Fletcher commits eisegesis.
Analogy: This can be analogised with a maths question. One could be asked a question and told to specifically leave their answer as a fraction but still give a decimal answer - they are willfully ignorant to the part of the question requesting a fraction as an answer. Likewise, Fletcher is willfully ignorant of parts of the Bible where Jesus upholds universal Mosaic law so that he can present his principle of agape as supposedly biblical.
Give the argument that Jesus rejected legalism.
Who: A liberal theologian who wanted to demythologise scripture and interpret Jesus contextually.
What: In a nutshell, Jesus often directly criticised strict legalism, even going against it. In John 8:1-11, Jesus directly went against Mosaic law which demanded punishment for the woman who committed adultery - offering reconciliation and mercy - so it seems that Fletcher deriving a principle based on Jesus’ love isn’t simply founded on eisegesis and is consistent with the character of Jesus shown throughout the new testament.
Give the argument from Pelagius on whether the fall actually happened
Who: Pelagius
What: In a nutshell, God would not command us to do good if it was impossible so it seems the notion of original sin (upon which Barclay depends on for his objection) is unfitting for an omnibenevolent God.
Give the argument that Jesus was situational with his ethics.
Who: Fletcher
What: Fletcher was situational with his teachings, therefore Situation ethics is an accurate religious ethic.
Why:
1) Jesus was situational with his ethics
This is plausible as demonstrated in the parable of the good samaritan + explanation
2) If 1) then situation ethics is an accurate religious ethic.
This is plausible since Fletcher rejected antinomainism and legalism because _____ and remedies their flaws with situationism with the central moral prinicple of agape.
3) Thus, situation ethics is an accurate religious ethic.
Another example is Jesus’s teachings on the sabbath being made for man, not the man for the sabbath.
Give the argument that agape depends on the four working principles
Who: Pragmatist critique
What: The four working principles are the most important aspect of situation ethics because they guide us on how to live with agape as the forfront of our ethical approach - which is necessary to be good.
Why:
1) The four working principles are necessary to apply agape.
This is plausible since by definition the four working principles are principles that aid in the application of agape. Take for example _______ + explanation of a working principle and how it helps in application of agape.
2) If 1) then the four working principles are the most important aspect of situation ethics.
This is plausible since, by aiding in the application of agape, situation ethics is made into a more realistic ethic because on top of having a central moral principle, it can actually tell us how to apply the principle to everyday moral situations - also making the ethic accessible to everyone.
3) Thus, the four working principles are the most important aspect of situation ethics.
Give the argument that agape actually depends on the 6 propositions.
Who: Internal debate within situation ethics
What: Agape is actually dependent on the 6 propositions to be meaningful, so the 6 propositions are the most important aspect of situation ethics.
Why:
1) Agape depends on the 6 propositions to be meaningful.
This is plausible since the 6 propositions are beliefs we must hold in regards to love to make situation ethics work, based on new testament christian ethics. As such, without these fundamental beliefs about agape, the central moral principle would be too abstract to be a good ethical theory.
2) If 1) the 6 propositions are the most important aspect of situation ethics.
This is plausible since the 6 propositions turn agape from an abstract saint-like ethic into an ethic we can begin to understand and apply in everyday life.
3) Thus the 6 propositions are the most important aspect of situation ethics.
