SITUATION ETHICS AND EUTHANASIA ESSAY PLAN
INTRO:
What is situation ethics: to do the most loving thing, following the Christian non-preferential agape love-
created by Joseph Fletcher
Euthanasia= intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering
What does situation ethics say about euthanasia- Joseph fletcher was a keen supporter of the idea of
euthanasia- gives people autonomy over their lives to do what the most loving thing is
My line of argument:
PARA 1: AGAPE
For- why situation ethics would work
- Situation ethics relies on the non-preferential agape love- it can be seen as sacrificial love
- Agape in the bible- john “g-d loves the world in this way”- unconditional love
- When related to euthanasia- this means being able to do the most loving thing, which is often
releasing someone of their suffering and pain
- Case study- tony bland- in the Hillsborough stadium disaster, 18 years old and spent 4 years in
hospital with no sign of recovery- his parents asked to case all treatment, including food and drink
(passive euthanasia)
- In the eyes of situation ethics this would be okay- “the situationist follows moral law or violated
according to loves need”- allowing tony to die is the most loving thing to do for himself and his
family
- Rules such as “do not kill” are sophia (general rule of wisdom) and can be broken when love
demands it- in this way sanctity of life is not absolute
BUT- against- why it has weaknesses
- Could be argued that situation ethics is too vague to be used- while doing the most loving thing is
a good aim, there is little guidance on what this might look like in practice
- This may mean that individuals differ as to what is the most loving thing to do- CS LEWIS
- Not a quick and easy way of moral decision making
BUT- for
- The decision to end someone’s life should it be quick and easy
- Whilst agape is subjected- if correctly understood is a good moral principle and puts people irst
- It is a clear improvement on utilitarian ideas of maximising happiness for the majority
- Agape is not subjective- it is more than just love- it involved selfless love of your neighbour
, PARA 2: FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES
For- why situation works
- Pragmatism fletcher values pragmatism- we should do whatever is likely to work, in euthanasia,
there may not be idea and perfect solutions, but what can be done is to ensure the devisions that
are taken are likely to lead to the lesser of possible evils
- Allows for individuality- as each cause has to be judged according to its merits, as there are no
intrinsic laws which prohibit euthanasia
- This also supports fletchers idea of relativism- killing people cannot be an absolute wrong, each
case has to be judges according to lobe and compassion- no “never” or “always”
- Positivism- laws are made by people to support humane treatment of others, might mean
allowing someone to die
- The relativist approach to euthanasia works as it allows for individual situations to be assessed
and for people to make their own decisions
- It would be wrong to say “killing is wrong” when someone is suffering endlessly
But- why there are weaknesses
- Situation ethics lacks absolute boundaries and critics of euthanasia express concern about a
slippery slope that may lead to an increase in euthanasia cases, particularly for vulnerable people
- In germany there is no age of consent for euthanasia- can this be okay- and what classifies as
suffering, metal health
- The slippery slope argument is the strongest challenge to situation ethics and euthanasia- as we
do not want to make a society where killing and giving up on life is normalised
But- why it still works
- The flexibility of situation ethics is very useful for euthanasia, it offers general principles rather
than fixed rules and this allows us to respond to complex and varying situations rather than
creating harsh and unfair intrinsic laws
INTRO:
What is situation ethics: to do the most loving thing, following the Christian non-preferential agape love-
created by Joseph Fletcher
Euthanasia= intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering
What does situation ethics say about euthanasia- Joseph fletcher was a keen supporter of the idea of
euthanasia- gives people autonomy over their lives to do what the most loving thing is
My line of argument:
PARA 1: AGAPE
For- why situation ethics would work
- Situation ethics relies on the non-preferential agape love- it can be seen as sacrificial love
- Agape in the bible- john “g-d loves the world in this way”- unconditional love
- When related to euthanasia- this means being able to do the most loving thing, which is often
releasing someone of their suffering and pain
- Case study- tony bland- in the Hillsborough stadium disaster, 18 years old and spent 4 years in
hospital with no sign of recovery- his parents asked to case all treatment, including food and drink
(passive euthanasia)
- In the eyes of situation ethics this would be okay- “the situationist follows moral law or violated
according to loves need”- allowing tony to die is the most loving thing to do for himself and his
family
- Rules such as “do not kill” are sophia (general rule of wisdom) and can be broken when love
demands it- in this way sanctity of life is not absolute
BUT- against- why it has weaknesses
- Could be argued that situation ethics is too vague to be used- while doing the most loving thing is
a good aim, there is little guidance on what this might look like in practice
- This may mean that individuals differ as to what is the most loving thing to do- CS LEWIS
- Not a quick and easy way of moral decision making
BUT- for
- The decision to end someone’s life should it be quick and easy
- Whilst agape is subjected- if correctly understood is a good moral principle and puts people irst
- It is a clear improvement on utilitarian ideas of maximising happiness for the majority
- Agape is not subjective- it is more than just love- it involved selfless love of your neighbour
, PARA 2: FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES
For- why situation works
- Pragmatism fletcher values pragmatism- we should do whatever is likely to work, in euthanasia,
there may not be idea and perfect solutions, but what can be done is to ensure the devisions that
are taken are likely to lead to the lesser of possible evils
- Allows for individuality- as each cause has to be judged according to its merits, as there are no
intrinsic laws which prohibit euthanasia
- This also supports fletchers idea of relativism- killing people cannot be an absolute wrong, each
case has to be judges according to lobe and compassion- no “never” or “always”
- Positivism- laws are made by people to support humane treatment of others, might mean
allowing someone to die
- The relativist approach to euthanasia works as it allows for individual situations to be assessed
and for people to make their own decisions
- It would be wrong to say “killing is wrong” when someone is suffering endlessly
But- why there are weaknesses
- Situation ethics lacks absolute boundaries and critics of euthanasia express concern about a
slippery slope that may lead to an increase in euthanasia cases, particularly for vulnerable people
- In germany there is no age of consent for euthanasia- can this be okay- and what classifies as
suffering, metal health
- The slippery slope argument is the strongest challenge to situation ethics and euthanasia- as we
do not want to make a society where killing and giving up on life is normalised
But- why it still works
- The flexibility of situation ethics is very useful for euthanasia, it offers general principles rather
than fixed rules and this allows us to respond to complex and varying situations rather than
creating harsh and unfair intrinsic laws
