Strenghts And Weaknesses Flashcards
(3 cards)
What are the strengths of Situation ethics?
-Fletcher’s Situation Ethics offers a personalist and relativist approach that allows moral decisions to be tailored to specific contexts
-This stands in stark contrast to Legalism, which rigidly applies rules regardless of potential harm. By prioritising agape love—the unconditional concern for others’ well-being—Fletcher deliberately rejects absolute principles, arguing that “sometimes you need to push aside your principle to fit the right thing”
-This reflects his fifth fundamental proposition: that the end can justify the means if the outcome promotes the greatest good. When challenged on this, Fletcher’s rhetorical response—“Then what on earth does?”—reveals his deep scepticism of rule-based ethics that neglect human need
-His well-known example of Mrs Bergmeier, who commits adultery in order to be released from a prisoner-of-war camp and reunite with her family, forces a moral dilemma: should legalistic ethics condemn her, or should love-based reasoning recognise the compassionate intent behind her action?
-Here, Situation Ethics appears more ethically responsive and pastorally sensitive than deontological frameworks, particularly as it echoes Jesus’ own rejection of legalism: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Fletcher’s theory is therefore pragmatic and adaptable, though critics might argue that its flexibility risks moral inconsistency or subjectivity
What is a weakness of Flecher’s situation ethics?
-One significant weakness of Situation Ethics is its dismissal of established moral laws, which represent the collective moral insight of societies over time. William Barclay, a prominent theologian, argued that “law is the distillation of experience” and warned that “to discard law is to discard experience”
-In this view, ethical rules are not arbitrary but are rooted in the accumulated wisdom of generations, reflecting what has been judged to promote human flourishing and social stability. By encouraging individuals to override these laws in favour of subjective interpretations of agape, Situation Ethics risks undermining moral consistency and predictability
-Fletcher defends this flexibility, claiming, “The situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s need,” but this raises a critical concern: who defines love in each case, and what stops that definition from becoming dangerously elastic? Biblical ethics, while centred on love, often uphold law as protective rather than oppressive
-For example, in the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5), deceit leads to severe consequences despite possible good intentions, suggesting that clear moral boundaries remain vital
-Fletcher’s approach, by contrast, risks empowering individuals to become judges of their own righteousness without accountability, reinforcing Barclay’s fear that rejecting law is to reject the moral lessons of the past
How does Fletcher’s situation ethics deviate from some of the moral views from the New Testament (weakness)?
-While Fletcher rightly emphasises love as central to Christian ethics, his situational approach arguably risks distorting the fuller moral vision of the New Testament. Scripture does not only advocate love but also sets out clear moral boundaries. For instance, in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus reaffirms the commandments: “Do not murder
-Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not give false testimony.” These teachings suggest that certain actions are intrinsically wrong, regardless of context. Fletcher’s claim that “love justifies the means” may appear to reduce these moral absolutes to optional guidelines, creating tension between his theory and biblical ethics
-Although love is a foundational Christian principle, Fletcher arguably overstates its authority at the expense of commandments that Jesus himself reaffirms
-His rejection of fixed moral rules risks oversimplifying the complexity of New Testament ethics, where love and law coexist rather than compete
