1
Q
Situation ethics
A
- considered Christian ethics created by Joseph Fletcher
- Influenced by Christian thinkers e.g. Bonhoeffer (Christian pacifist, plotted against Hitler WW2) and Bultmann -> Jesus had no ethical theory other than ‘love thy neighbour’
- put forward idea in 1960s (radical social movements) in book “Situation ethics: the new morality”
- ethical theory -> both moral relativism and teleological/consequentialist
- takes the situation into account
- gives people clear guidance
- avoids moral chaos
2
Q
Legalism
A
- approach involving lots of laws/rules
- rule or law for every potential ethical dilemma
- Fletcher put forward idea that Christianity was legalistic -> using “a whole apparatus of prefabricated rules”
- 613 rules in Bible, Natural Law precepts
- Fletcher rejected approach, prevented moral agents from thinking for themselves
- certain rules not applicable in modern society
- cannot take situation into account
- Fletcher -> “choking web of laws”
- Henry Miller - “the immorality of morality”
3
Q
Antinomianism
A
- complete opposite of legalism (no rules)
- moral agents have no guidance, any decision completely spontaneous, based on how moral agent feels at the time - Existentialism
Fletcher rejected approach -> people would become amoral (don’t know difference between right and wrong) - society would slip into anarchy
4
Q
Conscience
A
- Christians view as form of God given intuition, guides our decision making
- some Christians argue based on the Holy Spirit placed in every moral agent
- Fletcher rejected approach -> conscience subjective to their experience
- Believed conscience brain’s process of working out moral decisions (verb not noun)
- Fletcher argues this enables you to figure out the requirements of agape
- “Conscience is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions”
5
Q
The middle ground
A
- legalism and antinomianism too extreme, wanted theory to be based on middle ground between them - ‘principled relativism’
- decided there would be one principle, purpose of this principle to offer guidance to moral agents
- had to decide what principle would be, looked at the Bible
6
Q
Agape
A
- Fletcher protestant priest, studied Bible in depth
- concluded fundamental theme of scripture and Christian religion was love, e.g. “loving your neighbour as you love yourself”
- keen to express he was referring to specific type of love (agape)
- agape refers to selfless love
- three key features: given outwardly towards people, constant, given unconditionally
- from perspective of situation ethics, any ethical situation resulting in outcome based on agape is considered morally good
- Fletcher example -> family hiding from bandits, baby starts to cry (reveal hiding place), should kill baby otherwise all will die
7
Q
Principles of situation ethics
A
- Fletcher accepted idea of agape is vague, requires further explanation
- put forward principles to further explain idea of agape
8
Q
The boss principle
A
- Fletcher referred to agape as the boss principle, main and most important
- Principle important in Christianity and Christian theory
- Old Testament makes references to idea of ‘Aheb’ - selfless type of love shown to God and other humans
- New Testament, Jesus states Christians should “love your neighbour as you love yourself” - idea of treating others how we want to be treated
- Scholar C.S Lewis stated unconditional selfless love was highest form of love
- William Temple “It is axiomatic that love should be the predominant impulse”
9
Q
1st fundamental principle
A
- “Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely love: nothing else at all”
- Means agape is the only thing truly good all the time
- Other types of love may turn sour, this love will always be pure
- “these three remain; faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love” - St Paul 1 Corinthians 13
- Love is the highest good
- Promotes SE -> promotes love as good way of making moral decisions
10
Q
2nd fundamental principle
A
- “the ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else”
- Belief agape is main theme in Christianity
- Suggests love should be basis for all decisions
- Fletcher gives example of Jesus setting aside rules in favour of love
- Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman
- Broke 2 rules (speaking to a Samaritan and speaking to a woman in public he has no relation to)
- Jesus healed on the Sabbath - Mark 3:1-6 -> most loving thing to do despite breaking Jewish law
- Corinthians 13:4-13 supports -> loving actions should not be done for reward e.g. experiencing a good feeling
11
Q
3rd fundamental principle
A
- “Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else”
- Idea agape and justice are effectively same things
- Love and fairness are the same -> love is fair
- By being fair to others we are demonstrating agape e.g. giving money to charity
- Maximising agape is the only ethical goal
- Galatians 5:14 “The whole law is summed up in one commandment: ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’”
12
Q
4th fundamental principle
A
- “Love wills the neighbour’s good, whether we like him or not”
- Fletcher argues agape should be shown to everyone including those we may consider our enemies
- This is because agape is an unconditional form of love
- Mark 12:28-31 supports - ‘love your neighbour as yourself’
- St Paul Ephesians 2:13-15 -> love is powerful, you should love everyone equally
- Matthew 5:46 “Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you?”
- Should love everyone as God does -> everyone deserves love
13
Q
5th fundamental principle
A
- “only the loving end justifies the means, nothing else”
- Fletcher states loving outcomes can justify the actions
- If outcome is love, action is right no matter what it is
- In line with the teleological approach of his theory e.g. stealing to feed your starving children
14
Q
6th fundamental principle
A
- “love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively”
- Fletcher pointed out throughout history, humans have become enslaved by rules
- Believed this is wrong
- Humans have responsibility of free will, not bound by any law
- In every moral situation, the duty of every moral agent would be to do the most loving thing
15
Q
4 working principles
A
- Created by Fletcher to show moral agents how situation ethics actually work
- Pragmatism
- Relativism
- Positivism
- Personalism
16
Q
Pragmatism
A
- Situational ethics teleological, focuses on and judges outcome
- Issue -> moral agents have to predict outcomes
- Fletcher states in order for a moral agent to be morally god, their predictions must be realistic
- If they are not realistic, person considered morally bad
- e.g. using a student as a human shield against a school shooter -> unrealistic to think this will work as a defence
17
Q
Relativism
A
- Idea every action is neither right nor wrong
- Fletcher firmly believed this
- Felt rightness or wrongness of an action was dependant on outcome -> e.g. stealing is neither right nor wrong
- “relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative” - Fletcher
- only moral claims which are valid when relative to love justified
- “The Situationalist follows a law or violates it according to love’s need” - Fletcher
18
Q
Positivism
A
- Fletcher pointed out theory of situation ethics was based on concept of agape
- Agape main theme in the Bible, must ultimately have come from God
- Fletcher accepts that there is no way to prove this
- Something moral agents have to accept through faith
19
Q
Personalism
A
- Fletcher -> people are more important than rules
- In any moral situation, needs of the person must come first
- E.g. if terminally ill 85 year old man wants to be euthanised, their needs should come before any laws surrounding euthanasia
- Jesus said “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”
- Jesus knew rules could be broken if it was for the good of humanity
20
Q
Religious objections to situation ethics
A
- Claims to be a Christian ethic
- Catholics (traditional views) describe situation ethics as an “individual ethic to justify actions opposed to God.”
- No matter how pragmatic situation is, sanctity of life cannot be relativised
- Pope Pius XII -> moral law not subject to individual interpretation, fixed standard set by God
- “attacks […] the adorable person of Christ himself”
Fletcher argues two most important people in New Testament (Jesus and St Paul) would agree with idea of situation ethics
21
Q
Jesus
A
- Central figure in Christianity (son of God)
- Fletcher’s example -> asked by a Jewish man about his views on most moral commandment
- Jewish people believed all 613 commandments of equal importance
- Jesus -> love God with all your heart
- Love your neighbour as yourself -> situation ethics
- Good Samaritan parable, Jesus classed everyone as your neighbour
- Fits with 4th principle (love for all)
- Jesus often set aside rules in favour of love (healing and preaching on Sabbath)
22
Q
St Paul
A
- 2nd most important figure in Christianity, contributed to completion of New Testament
- Valued idea of agape, emphasised concept through teachings
- Wrote letter to Corinthians “Now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love”
- Agape even more important than belief in God and an eternal life in heaven
23
Q
Key terms for situation ethics
A
- Relativist - no action considered right or wrong
- Teleological - in any moral situation, outcome is what should be judged
Consequential - morality of an action should be based on consequence of action (outcome)
From perspective of situation ethics, any moral situation resulting in outcome based on agape is considered good
24
Q
Application - Polygamy
A
- Polygamy - being in a committed relationship involving more than two people
- Religious and societal perspective
“Thou shall not commit adultery” + homosexuality - Taboo, societally accepted
25
Application - Homosexuality
- Homosexuality - sexual or romantic attraction between people of same gender
- Historically (societal) illegal, now legal, more accepting
- "You should not lie with a man as you would with a woman" - Bible
- Christianity now more accepting
26
Designed for modern society
- Fletcher and Robinson argue (influenced by Bonhoeffer) humanity has ‘come of age’ (become more mature)
- Medieval and ancient times -> people less educated / self-controlling
- Needed fixed ridged clear rules to follow, could not be trusted to understand / act on the nuances / complexities in how a rule could justifiably be broken if situation called for it
- Now -> people more civilised, granting them more autonomy = increase love without risking the stability of society
27
Opposition - William Barclay
- Gives moral agents dangerous amount of freedom
- ‘freedom can become selfishness and even cruelty' if love not perfect
- mankind not yet come of age, ‘still needs the crutch and protection of law’
- Argument fails - legalism has worse downsides (inflexible, outdated)
- People more educated, trusted with more freedom
- Argument succeeds - people might appear improved, if granted freedom may be cruel, selfish -> power corrupts
- Human nature corrupt (original sin) -> Stanford prison experiment, Lord of the Flies (psychology)
- "SE would only work if all men were saints"
28
Fletcher's Liberal Approach to the Bible
- Bible interpreted e.g. "Do not resist an evil doer -> 'some paradigms or suggestions’
- Should not be thought of as legalistic rule book, not perfect word of God
- Not unbreakable rules -> maximise agape
- Love most prevalent ethical theme in the Bible
29
Sola Scriptura
- Love not only element of Biblical Christian ethics
- Cannot be considered Christian ethics, ignore all other commandments
- Martin Luther -> 'sola scriptura' - Bible alone source of moral authority, not individuals using agape
- Sola scriptura protestant W. L. Craig -> Bible shows God’s justice just as important as his love
- Diluted Christian ethics into just loving and wanting the best for others
- Not distinctive from secular morality or general well-wishing
30
Secular society
- Declining belief in religion
- 2010 6% attended church regularly
- Does not work, have to believe (Positivism) Agape comes from God
31
Strength - judges consequence
- Compassionate approach, considers individual circumstances > generalised moral judgements
- Natural Law - lying always wrong, sometimes necessary e.g. hiding Jews from Nazis - most selfless loving consequences
- Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer - murdering Hitler justified (outcome agape) -> assassination failed, hanged 1945
32
Strength - supports human nature
- Psychologists -> most important modern emotion = love
- "The need for love is overwhelming. It seems anything is preferable to being without it" - Harry Harlow
- Judge morality through loving consequences = spreading more love in the world
33
Weakness - some actions wrong
- Poor ethic, some actions wrong, should not become right due to loving outcome
- Stealing action wrong regardless of loving consequences e.g. feed starving child
- Murder/rape should not become morally right due to agape outcomes
- Relative approach = no actions right or wrong, some actions are
- Pope Benedict -> ethics are a "dictatorship of relativism"
34
Weakness - lacks rules
- Modern society is in moral decline
- 1960s, Lord Devlin -> society's existence depends on maintaining strong deontological rule, not unclear principles about love
- To improve morality, society needs clear deontological moral ethic (Natural Law) everyone can follow
35
Weakness - love dangerous emotion
- Dangerous to judge complex decisions on agape (emotionally unstable)
- Many horrific crimes carried out for love
36
Weakness - ignores Biblical moral rules
- Ignores all 613 commandments (fundamental Biblical ethical guide)
- Some Christians can't accept
- Traditional Christian ethics based on commandments -> legalist
- Cannot accept non-legalist Situation Ethics
37
Weakness - requires moral agents to predict outcomes
- Teleological -> predict possible agape consequences
- Easier said than done, moral agents not good at it - society is complex
- Could do bad action in hope of loving consequences
- Accurate outcome prediction almost impossible, bad action could result in bad outcome
38
Weakness - not universal
- No fixed set of deontological rules
- Poor basis for morality, only fair to treat all people same way
- e.g. two people wanting abortion may be treated differently (one right one wrong)
- Could be argued treats everyone same way - everyone judged on same criteria (agape of actions)
39
Strength - easy to follow
- Principle of 'agape' easy to follow
- Everyone has innate understanding of love
- No training of what love is needed
40
Strength - people are different
- Puts people before rules (Personalism)
- Philosopher Gareth Moore -> people in different societies different - influenced by cultural upbringing etc
- Unjust to judge all people with same deontological rules -> people are different
- Relativist - takes differences into account - good ethic for contemporary postmodern society
41
Strength - Agape brings social justice
- Motivates people to change things for the better -> see the wrong in e.g. poverty
- Encourage more change than following same system of rules (no change)
- Martin Luther King fought for equality for black Americans in 1960s out of selfless love
42
Sola scriptura weaknesses
- Craig could be right God's love equally important to his justice
- Fletcher could be right justice love distributed
- Proves Fletcher's point impossible to interpret Bible meaning -> guidelines, not perfect word of God
- Justified to override most commandments with agape
43
Sola scriptura strengths
- Fletcher's approach no better than trying to interpret Bible
- Themes of Bible = subjective interpretation
- SE fails to provide convincing approach to Christian ethics
- Ends up sliding into antinomianism (subjective)
44
Jesus argument weakness
- Richard Mouw - senseless reducing Christian ethics to one command - Jesus made other commands
- Either see him as moral authority or not -> Pope Pius XII
- Christ spoke of importance of following all commandments (Matthew 19:17 and John 14:15) -> SE attacks Christ
- Romans 3:8 condemns ends justify means
- Jesus wouldn't have bothered making other commandments if only agape matters
- More logical -> agape greatest commandments means relevant to most number of situations
45
Jesus argument strengths
- Mouw and Pius XII unsuccessful, question regarding the validity of taking legalistic approach
- If all Jesus’ commands individually true,
incoherent to only follow one of them
- Fletcher -> example of Jesus himself goes against legalist approach
- Jesus example of taking progressive, situationist approach to ethical commands
- Reading + following Jesus like inflexible legalist fails to incorporate that side of approach
- Full appreciation of Jesus’ ethics involves both legalism and situationism
- Cannot be viewed legalistically
- Fletcher does not want to disregard rules only the insistence on the legalistic approach to their application.
46
Subjectivity issue - strength of SE
- Doing action which promotes loving outcome seems strong basis for ethics
- Oriented towards love without weakness of unreliable emotion
- Agape stronger -> selfless, Christian, Jesus recommended
- Some say love subjective, unstable basis
- E.g. Auschwitz guard might think doing loving thing -> Nazis don't love neighbour (Jews) as they love themselves -> Fletcher's theory doesn't justify
47
Subjectivity issue - weakness of SE
- Agape less subjective than love, requires symmetry in loving others and yourself
- C. Hitchens -> only good if way you love yourself is good
- Others may not want to be loved way you love yourself
- Way person loves themselves is subjective, so is agape
- E.g. two Nazis might they hope the other would kill them if they were Jewish (rather be dead than Jewish) -> genuinely what they view as loving themselves
- Loving neighbour as yourself for Nazi involves killing Jewish neighbour
- Viking or spartan warrior might be envious of those they kill in battle (glorious death is highest honour) -> killing people in battle = loving neighbour as yourself
48
Subjectivity issue evaluation
- Criticism unsuccessful -> misunderstands agape
- Loving neighbour as yourself, not treating others as you want to be treated
- Nazis/Viking warriors not self-loving when creating moral judgements
- Successful -> shows Fletcher's abandonment of strict laws
- Diluted Christian ethics into just doing what person subjectively perceives to be loving
- Not distinctive from secular morality or just general well-wishing
- Theory slides into antinomianism
49
Leads to antinomianism
- SE perpetually relevant - flexibility, allows Christian ethics to adapt
Weakness
- Pope Pius XII -> Aquinas' Natural Law + conscience already does this
- Aquinas -> prudence was a cardinal virtue
- Primary precepts are not rules -> applied to particular situations
- Could even be justified to do a sinful action if the double effect justifies it -> limit of flexibility
-Fletcher’s working principles of pragmatism and relativism are wrong - sanctity of life can't be relativised
- Stability of society threatened by relativistic ethical theories like SE
- Mother Theresa - “the greatest destroyer of peace today is [abortion]. If a mother can kill her own child in her womb, what is left for you and me to kill each other?”
50
Leads to Antinomianism weakness
- Social order argument doesn’t seem to be true
- Northern Europe has most atheistic countries, quality of life is acted on instead of sanctity of life
- Some of the most stable and happy countries in the world
- Not true that strict ethical principles like the sanctity of life required for social order
- Fletcher’s situationism doesn’t lead to antinomianism
51
Leads to antinomianism strength
- Catholic argument successful - logical if a culture devalues life, could threaten social stability
- God designed us to live to preserving human life
- If we go against that, society will break down -> living contrary to God’s design is unnatural -> leads to immorality and social disorder
- Moralities focusing on individual autonomy at expense of social norms might seem to make sense in particular situations -> ultimately bad for society -> need clear, fixed rules
- Fletcher’s overly individualistic situationism thus leads to antinomianism
52
Key Quotes - acceptance of agape
- "You shall love ... your neighbour as yourself.” - Luke 10:25 (to inherit eternal life)
- “The simple-minded use of the notions of ‘right and wrong’ is one of the chief obstacles to the progress of understanding.” - Norman Whitehead
- “Conscience is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively, fittingly.” - Joseph Fletcher
- “Legalists make an idol of Sophia… situationists use it.” - Joseph Fletcher
- “…these three remain: faith, hope and love... the greatest of these is love.” - 1 Cor.
53
Key Quotes - principles
- “What a difference it makes when love, understood agape, is boss.” - Fletcher
- “There must be an absolute or norm of some kind if there is to be any true relativity.” - Fletcher
- “To love Christianly is a matter of attitude, not of feeling.” - Fletcher
- “Justice is the many-sidedness of love.” -Fletcher
- "Love is the only universal" - Fletcher
54
Key Quotes - application
- “Society has a right to protect itself from danger within and without, and not to force a monistic and monopoly standard of personal conduct.” - Fletcher
- “There is some boundary between personal existence and the social membership. There is some range for private choice and personal taste. ” -Fletcher
- “What sex probably needs more than anything is a good airing, demythologizing it and getting rid of its mystique-laden and occult accretions.” - Fletcher
- “Whether any form of sex (hetero, homo or auto) is good or evil depends on whether love is fully served.” - Fletcher
55
Application (P1)
- Fletcher -> sexual relationships matter of personal freedom governed by rule of
concern for neighbour
- Viewed ideological ethical debates about
sexuality as absolutist, refused to speak of good, evil, right and wrong in response
- Whether homosexuality right or wrong depended on situation, not absolutist position
- Religious approach to relationships
should be whether or not ‘love is fully served’
- Any type of sexual relationship should have equal treatment in relation to the agapeic principle of SE (‘love is fully served’) - Views about sexual relationships are private, not the remit of ‘social or public interest’ or ‘neighbour-concern.’
56
Agape -> application (P2)
- Principle of agape supports any relationship as long as:
1. What is done in private or public does not contravene legal rights of personal freedom
2. Does not offend public decency or the social dimension of ‘neighbour concern’.
- Any such relationship according to the agapeic principle cannot contradict Christian teaching
57
4 Working Principles - application (P4)
- Any relationship should be relative to the four working principles:
1. Specific situation (relativism)
2. Practical (pragmatic)
3. Person orientated (personable)
4. Driven by faith in the principle of agape (positivism)
58
6 Fundamentals - application (P3)
- Any relationship should support the basis of agapeic concern for ‘neighbour’ as
outlined in the six fundamental principles:
1. Love is the only good
2. Love is the ruling norm of Christianity
3. Love equals justice
4. Love for all
5. Loving ends justify the means
6. Love decides situationally
Philosophy
flashcards
Decks in class (17)
# Cards
-
Topic 1 - Situation ethics58
-
Topic 1 - Utilitarianism58
-
Topic 2 - Aquinas' Natural Law73
-
Finnis' Natural Law Theory55
-
Hoose - Proportionalism27
-
Divine Command Theory29
-
Virtue Theory20
-
Ethical Egoism22
-
Naturalism15
-
Intuitionism20
-
Emotivism20
-
Religious Determinism (Predestination) - Augustine25
-
Predestination - John Calvin13
-
Hard Determinism20
-
Soft Determinism16
-
Religious Free Will47
-
Libertarianism36
