To what extent is Situation Ethics a religious ethical theory?
Introduction
Define: Situation ethics- Ethics focused on the situation, rather than fixed rules.
Importance: Application of situation ethics makes otherwise controversial topics and decisions like
abortion and euthanasia acceptable under the idea that it is the ‘most loving thing to do’.
Scholars: Fletcher, Bultmann, Mac Namara, Pope Pius XII
Conclusion: Situation ethics is not a religious ethical theory
Paragraph 1
Point: Situation ethics is a religious ethical theory
Argument: Situation ethics is clearly compatible with any Christian approach that sees ‘love’ as the
centre of Christianity. Rudolf Bultmann argued that Jesus had no ethics apart from ‘love thy
neighbour as thyself’, which is the ultimate duty. Joseph Fletcher follows in this tradition. Agape love
is the highest end.
Vincent MacNamara said that ‘if you are a Christian believer (which Fletcher was when he came up
with his theory), your faith commitment is bound to have some implications for your moral vision
and life. To the extent that it does, your ethics will be distinctively Christian’.
Counterargument: Fletcher also seemed to have forgotten that loving your neighbour is only half
the rule- loving God is also a command of the Bible and to love God you should listen to the whole of
his revelation/ goodness, which means taking the rules of the Bible seriously.
Paragraph 2
Point: Situation ethics is not a religious ethical theory
Argument: It cannot be denied that in 1956, the study of the Situationist approach to ethics
(referred to as ‘new morality’) was banned from all Roman Catholic academies and seminaries on
the grounds of its incompatibility with Roman Catholic teaching.
Pope Pius XII condemned the situational approach by stating “It is an individual and subjective
appeal to the concrete circumstances of actions to justify decisions in opposition to the Natural Law
or God’s revealed will”. In Romans, St Paul rejects the idea that we may ‘do evil so that good may
come’. In other words, Paul is saying that the ends never justify the means; but this seems to
contradict Fletcher’s working principle that ‘love is the only means’.
Counterargument: In addition, one only has to look at the change in views within Christianity on
issues such as war, slavery, the death penalty and equality for women to see that absolutes are not
always absolute. In this sense it is clearly compatible.
Paragraph 3
Point: Situation ethics is not a religious ethical theory
, Argument: Many churches disagree with Fletcher’s description of the biblical moral message.
Arguably, the Bible gives lots of guidance on how to apply love and yet many of the rules seem to be
the kind of things that Fletcher wanted to get away from. He used one biblical idea (agape love) as
an argument against other biblical ideas (protecting life, sexual purity, being honest, and not
stealing). Fletcher’s religious foundation is selective.
Counterargument: Fletcher makes much of the Christian origins of agape love in his moral system.
He roots it in the New Testament and argues his ethical system is a reading of Christian Ethics.
Introduction
Define: Situation ethics- Ethics focused on the situation, rather than fixed rules.
Importance: Application of situation ethics makes otherwise controversial topics and decisions like
abortion and euthanasia acceptable under the idea that it is the ‘most loving thing to do’.
Scholars: Fletcher, Bultmann, Mac Namara, Pope Pius XII
Conclusion: Situation ethics is not a religious ethical theory
Paragraph 1
Point: Situation ethics is a religious ethical theory
Argument: Situation ethics is clearly compatible with any Christian approach that sees ‘love’ as the
centre of Christianity. Rudolf Bultmann argued that Jesus had no ethics apart from ‘love thy
neighbour as thyself’, which is the ultimate duty. Joseph Fletcher follows in this tradition. Agape love
is the highest end.
Vincent MacNamara said that ‘if you are a Christian believer (which Fletcher was when he came up
with his theory), your faith commitment is bound to have some implications for your moral vision
and life. To the extent that it does, your ethics will be distinctively Christian’.
Counterargument: Fletcher also seemed to have forgotten that loving your neighbour is only half
the rule- loving God is also a command of the Bible and to love God you should listen to the whole of
his revelation/ goodness, which means taking the rules of the Bible seriously.
Paragraph 2
Point: Situation ethics is not a religious ethical theory
Argument: It cannot be denied that in 1956, the study of the Situationist approach to ethics
(referred to as ‘new morality’) was banned from all Roman Catholic academies and seminaries on
the grounds of its incompatibility with Roman Catholic teaching.
Pope Pius XII condemned the situational approach by stating “It is an individual and subjective
appeal to the concrete circumstances of actions to justify decisions in opposition to the Natural Law
or God’s revealed will”. In Romans, St Paul rejects the idea that we may ‘do evil so that good may
come’. In other words, Paul is saying that the ends never justify the means; but this seems to
contradict Fletcher’s working principle that ‘love is the only means’.
Counterargument: In addition, one only has to look at the change in views within Christianity on
issues such as war, slavery, the death penalty and equality for women to see that absolutes are not
always absolute. In this sense it is clearly compatible.
Paragraph 3
Point: Situation ethics is not a religious ethical theory
, Argument: Many churches disagree with Fletcher’s description of the biblical moral message.
Arguably, the Bible gives lots of guidance on how to apply love and yet many of the rules seem to be
the kind of things that Fletcher wanted to get away from. He used one biblical idea (agape love) as
an argument against other biblical ideas (protecting life, sexual purity, being honest, and not
stealing). Fletcher’s religious foundation is selective.
Counterargument: Fletcher makes much of the Christian origins of agape love in his moral system.
He roots it in the New Testament and argues his ethical system is a reading of Christian Ethics.
