Situation ethics is the best approach to resolving moral problems. Discuss (40 marks)

“Situation ethics is the best approach to resolving moral problems.” Discuss (40 marks)

Situation ethics is a relativist theory with one absolute law, to do the most loving thing in every situation. It is a teleological theory meaning that the end justifies the means, nothing else. It is also a situational approach meaning that there are no fixed rules, everything is dependent on the situation and the most loving thing to do. The issue the question raises is whether situation ethics is the best approach to resolving moral problems in comparison to theories such as Aquinas’ natural law and Bentham’s utilitarianism and in many ways, it is not. In situation ethics, right and wrong depend upon the situation. There are no universal moral rules or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution. Situation ethics rejects 'prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules'. It teaches that ethical decisions should follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules and be taken on a case by case basis.

The good aspect of situation ethics is the fact that it is personalist. This means that it puts people before rules. We could argue that this is following Jesus’ teachings. Jesus said, ‘Sabbath was made for man not man for Sabbath’. This shows that religion and ethics should be centred around people rather than around fixed rules. Another positive aspect of situation ethics is the fact that it is pragmatic this means that it suggests solutions that are practical. This makes it is a useful ethical theory. However, the problem with situation ethics is the fact that it is vague. It’s impossible to say what we are supposed to do.  How do we work out what the most loving thing is if it changes from situation to situation? Also, the lines are very blurry when explaining who the person involved is, thus leading us to question how we can do the most loving thing if we don’t know who to do the loving act for. An additional problem is the fact that situation ethics allows terrible things such as adultery, theft, lying, and murder to happen in the name of love. 

As a relativist theory, situation ethics is flexible, allowing individualised responses to different contexts. Fletcher states that rules are useful, but there are exceptions. In his analogy of the cab driver and his political views, the cab driver says, “Sometimes you have to push aside your principles and do the right thing.” This shows that doing the right thing is more important than following the rules. Nevertheless, we are supposed to follow the rules in order to live in a society with shared values. Like Street Carnage proclaimed, “They weren’t called the ‘ten suggestions’.” This shows that there is no compromise when it comes to the rules. They are compulsory. As well as being a relativist theory, situation ethics is also a teleological theory. It focuses on the end or outcome of an action.  Fletcher once said, “If the end doesn’t justify the means, what does?” This shows that only the end can justify the means. However, this concept is misguided. This is because the end does not justify the means. St Paul said Christians should not do evil that good may come of it. Similarly, St Aquinas tells us that doing bad to achieve good is still bad since it is evil to sin even for a good reason. These ideas leave situation ethics in crumbles since the whole idea is based on the ends justifying the means.

In some ways, the situationist theory is a great way for the Church to reconcile strict rules in the Bible with Jesus’ approach.  Jesus criticised the Pharisees for being legalistic.  On the other hand, it would be wrong to get rid of all rules (antinomianism).  Situation Ethics is midway between the two, allowing Christians to consult the Bible and Church tradition, but put these aside if love demands it, just as Jesus did. However, situational ethics isolates the Church. As the individual acts independently, the Church has no place in moral decision making. To prove his theory, Fletcher uses one part of the Bible and ignores the rest. He solely uses Jesus’ teachings, “love your neighbour as yourself” in order to contradict with chapters of the Bible which tell us to obey God and all his rules. The situationist approach ignores thousands of years of Church tradition, throwing away the wisdom of the greatest teachers.  Wise men have debated important topics for generations, and yet the individual can make a more informed decision on the spur of the moment?

Unlike natural law, situation ethics is up to date. Situationism allows you to change with the times. This includes ideas about marriage, sexuality, medical ethics etc. However, in comparison to natural law, situation ethics is lacking in standards. Biblical principles hold true for all societies at all times. Natural Law is universal, eternal and unchanging. On the other hand, situation ethics allows the individual to make their own decisions.  Acting out of love frees us from having to follow established authorities of which we have become distrustful.  St Paul said that Christians have died to the law and “are not under the law but under grace”.  

Situation ethics tends to idolise the individual, it gives each person more authority than the Bible or the Church. Our Post-modern society tends to focus too much on the individual.  When others are free to lie, steal, even kill, this doesn’t amount to autonomy, but a dictatorship of individuality.  And like Robinson says, “It will all descend into moral chaos.” How can we live in a society where everything is acceptable, even murder? On the other hand, situation ethics provides a sense of social justice. Agape motivates people to change things for the better, to get rid of discrimination, help those who are poor etc.  Change is needed, and a system of rules doesn’t help bring about change.  However, situation ethics is unfair, justice requires us to follow the law, and treat all people equally.  Situation Ethics allows us to treat people differently, break the rules, lie and steal in individual circumstances, and this is not fair.

The theory in its self is positivist as it focuses on love, which is “patient, kind, not self-seeking, it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.”  What better motive to act on? Or at least it would be if it wasn’t so baseless. There is no justification for basing ethics on love.  No defence is given.  We are just supposed to accept as obvious the idea that there are no fixed rules and ethics means love. Situation ethics follows Jesus’ teaching (how can anything the messiah says be wrong?).  He said that we should love God and love our neighbour.  Furthermore, Fletcher claims that “All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” However, Fletcher fails to understand that we are not perfect, we do not have the ability to love selflessly. If we were all like Jesus, this method of decision making might work but, we are not. Barclay believed we can’t be trusted to do the right thing, and it would only work ‘if all men were angels’. 

Situation ethics tends to focus on motive, Utilitarianism focuses on consequences, but these are out of our control.  Situation Ethics has most of the strengths of Utilitarianism but doesn’t rely on consequences that are immeasurable, unpredictable and incalculable. However, we are told that ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Just because you act out of love, doesn’t mean you have done the right thing.  I may give money to a homeless man out of love, but it will probably only perpetuate his situation.  Reason, on the other hand, would tell me it is better to give to a charity for the homeless that will look for long-term solutions. Whilst rationality may play a part in working out what is in the best interests of others, love is not limited to cold, hard reason.  Rationality cannot motivate our actions as it is dispassionate.  Love moves us to do what reason shows us is the best outcome. 

To conclude, situational ethics is not a good approach to moral problem solving since it is nowhere as good or as stable as Natural Law. According to Callahan, situation ethics is irrational and too individualistic. He argues that “By the 1970s, situation ethics had been roundly rejected as no ethics at all... Good ethical theory, it was believed, should be objective, rational, internally coherent and consistent, universally applicable, detached from individual self-interest, and impersonal in its capacity to transcend the particularities of time and culture.” As well as criticising Fletcher’s ethics, Callahan points out natural law theory as the best ethical guideline for moral problem-solving. As well as Callahan, many Christians tend to dislike Fletcher’s theory. It portrays a complete contrast of natural law theory and the morals of the church. Using his ethics even murder can be justified, which is completely unacceptable in Christianity as a whole. This leads us to conclude that as well as not being the best approach to moral problem solving, it is also not a Christian approach.