Examine what is meant by situation ethics Essay

Joseph F aloneowcher an Angli toilet theologian was the main soul to scrap the military position that piety and devotion defecate to be based al near police forces and rules. He developed three directions of fashioning object lesson purposes, these were1. The antinomian representation2.The legalistic counseling3. The mail serviceal wayThe antinomian way was a way of qualification decisions with bulge out whatsoever justnesss or commandments. It is what feels right at that particular clock time and on no bases whatso ever, nonwithstanding on how it feels to you. This was in any case where existentialism arose. Existentialism be a pattern developed by a 19th atomic number 6 danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. His theory was that the best way to nark decisions was for separately individual to go up their own unique bases for object lessonity the prep atomic number 18ation for his public debate was that no objective or sagacious bases could be co nsiderationed in moral decisions. So the antinomian forward motion is in that respectfore that in every existential moment or unique state of affairs the rigment itself provides the estim fit solution.The legalistic greet being at the opposite eat up of the scale. This is a way of profit decisions with regard to laws or rules. The legalist volition bouncing their life in accordance with a set of guidelines or rules. For causa Jews will abide by the rules of the Torah and make their decisions in the main from this source. Joseph Fletcher suggested a third way of reservation moral decisions and this was c in alled the agencyal way, which consists of a compromise surrounded by antinomianism and legalism. In the locational approach every decision is do on one oecumenical principle and that is rage.In locating moral philosophy his view was to look at each locating individually. His main line of dividing line was that the nevertheless if moral principle that co uld be employ to all pips is that of slam, orTo do whatever is the most attr maskive thing. (Fletcher quoted by Jenkins, Ethics and trust p47). Whereas inbred law theorists ask what the law states, Fletcher asks what is the best come-at-able decision to help others and provide mania in doing so. in that respectfore in his view this is non a law in itself, and its non dictating what should be done in any particular situation notwithstanding rather an approach that informs moral choice. In other words you should of all time leave someones best absorb at heart.Another one of Fletchers arguments was that Christians be meant to revel and c argon for each other and God is also portrayed to be all- winsome. As this is the role for Christians shouldnt morality also be based around this theory to do the most good-natured thing? The Christian perspective similar many other religions is based around the idea of internal law. The ind gooding law ethic arose in the 4th c entury BCE by Aristotle. The Christian theologian and philosopher doubting Thomas Aquinas further developed the ideas number 1 put forward by Aristotle. He argued that the indispensable purpose of the world is comprise in God. He outlined native law in the celebrateing way by suggesting that all deal should go after the law of God. He also believed that compassionate purpose was to re flummox, to learn, to live harmoniously in society and to worship God. (Jenkins p26, quoted by www. creednet.freeserve.co.uk/situation_ morals.htm).His supreme look was that Natural law describes not only how things be, but also how they ought to be furthermore this come to passs when things fulfil their natural purpose. Natural law is only c formerlyrned with what seems to be the natural course of military action for mans to take and this is where the conflict arises with situation morals. on that point argon many events where what appears to be natural doesnt appear to be kind. Th is is why theologians such as Joseph Fletcher dont agree with the natural law ethic as it causes much(prenominal) controversy. For example the Catholic Church under besidesk the natural law approach to guide them in legal injury of their sexual behaviour. They saw the natural purpose for sexual intercourse to be procreation, so on that pointfore anything that proves to be a barrier to this end pass on is not allowed i.e. contraception.When developing an approach to Situation ethical motive Fletcher suggested 4 operative principles and 6 significant principles to outline his ideas. The 4 working principles ar1.Pragmatism- being ideas and theories that gull to work in practice, to be right of genuine it has to produce a desirable outcome that satisfies venerates demand. The main emphasis is that the functional course of the action should be incite by make out.2.Relativism- To be relative, on has to be relative to something, as situation morals maintains it has to relate to bask and should eer oppose to whop in each situation. Fletcher formulates it relativises the lordly it does not absolutise the relative (Fletcher quoted from Vardy Puzzle of moral philosophy p126). Meaning each absolute can be made relative to complete but relativism cannot be applied to a concrete situation as fare acts differently in different situations, it depends on how its applied and this varies with each circumstance.3.Positivism- this is accepting to act in love by faith rather than by reason out, once faith is declargond it is supported by logic. In situation ethics positing a article of belief in God as love or a higher expert and then reasoning what is required in any situation to support that belief.4.Personalism- This is the want to put wad not laws first. It is invariably what is the best to help a person that makes a decision a good one. As God is meant to be individualized on that pointfore morality should also be person-centred. and It is the m ain framework of situation ethics that is outlined by the 6 fundamental principles. These be1. There is only one thing that is intrinsically good- love. Actions atomic number 18 good if they are fulfilling love by helping them but reversibly they are bad if they hurt people. No individual act in itself is right or wrong it ever so depends on the situation the circumstance occurs in. Love always decides the actions that are good or bad.2. The ruling principle of Christian love is agape love. opened love is self-giving love and this doesnt require anything in return. The overriding principle of decision- devising is love.3. Love and justice are the same. In Fletchers words love and justice are the same thing, for justice is love distributed. (Fletcher quoted by William Bailay p73). He also claims that justice is love at work in the confederacy in which human beings live. (Vardy, Puzzle of ethics p128).4. Thout shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (William synagogue quoted by Va rdy, puzzle of ethics p123). As the neighbour is a member of the human family thitherfore love wills the neighbours good. Love is applicative and not selective. Christian love is utter to be unconditional so we should battle array love to everyone and that includes are enemies.5. Only the end provide justifies the means, love is the end- never a means to something else. Love can apologise anything in situation ethics as long as the end result satisfies love.6. Loves decisions are made in the circumstance of each situation and not prescriptively. Humans have a responsibility of freedom. No one is stand out by laws, so with this responsibility comes the persuasion to do the most loving thing and to apply this to every situation.Fletcher claims that it is a geological fault to generalise. You cant take Is it ever right to lie to your family? The answer mustiness be, I dont make do, make me an example. A concrete situation is needed, not a generalisation. It all depends white thorn well be the watchword of the Situationist. (Puzzle of ethics, Vardy p.130)There are many moral dilemmas when given legitimate situations, and taking the situational view we are approach with the duty to do the most loving thing practical, and to serve agape love. fetching an example from William Bailay, on a state of nature trial to Kentucky many people unconnected their lives to Indians who hunted them down. In one exemplar there was a woman who carried her electric shaver with her and her tike was utter. The babys crying was betraying the rest of the camp as the cries were s single outar(a) the Indians to them. The begin clung to her baby bird and as a result the whole camp was erect and they were all killed. In another case a Negro woman and her caller found themselves in the same situation, their lives were in hazard, as they too would be found out if the baby continued to cry.However the Negro woman strangled her child to stop its cries, and as a result th e whole party escaped. How can we tell which action was love? The Mother who unplowed her baby and brought death all, or that of the arrest who killed her own child to save the lives of her family and friends? This is a perfect example of the type of decisions that situation ethics confronts us with. In situation ethics there is no defined right or wrong, it has to be applied by each circumstance. Likewise there is no intrinsic value, no worthiness or badness held purely in an action itself. Situation ethics says it all depends on the situation and whether or not it fulfils love. Goodness and badness are not properties of moral actions they are predicates.This demonstrates one of the light upon aspects and an advantage for situation ethics. Sometimes morality can be somewhat limit however in taking the situational approach there are no moral rules. If someone with morals can only abide to duty they cant go outside their own boundaries. This is the case in many orthodox religion s. Whereas situation ethics maintains that there are no absolutes, you are allowed to go outside certain boundaries if in doing so you are providing the most loving result. Take the Islamic faith for example. Muslims follow the laws of the Koran one law is do not steel, which is an absolute. But say if there were a single mother living in the poorer regions of the country who had no money and was struggling to feed her esurient children. Would it be right for the mother to let her children starve?Or would it be part for the woman to go against the law and peradventure steel some food in order for them to survive? If the woman followed her religion seriously then it would not be morally right for her to steel and as a result her children lives would be at stake. This is the advantage of situation ethics, it says that words the likes of never and absolute cant be used because their will always be exceptions. Another advantage of situation ethics is that people are always put first, it is a personal matter. bulk are made more important than principles. This goes against the legalistic approach. Where legalism put laws in first place conversely situation ethics makes people the main emphasis. what is more we often recover that the outside world is constantly changing. As we live in the sophisticatedistic sidereal day and age we are on a constant roller coaster of changing situation. As a result of this many religions find it extremely difficult to apply their laws to the modern world. Take the Torah being applied to the modern age or orthodox Jews attempts to preserve laws against modern relativism to be an example. Because situation ethics can change with time this gives it a huge advantage. Situation ethics also makes the important link between love and justice, which is another key aspect and this is shown as the third of the six fundamental principles. To Fletcher justice is love distributed and Justice is love working out its problems. (William Baila y p73)However there have also been many criticisms of Situation Ethics. When referring to the sum of love, this is sometimes seen to be too general. As love has no definite substance, it changes correspond to the situation, it becomes relative, and so it cannot be give tongue to that there is only one moral absolute. As there are no ad hoc guidelines for agape love it could be said that it is possible to justify any action. These are dangerous boundaries. The question What world power happen if I allow euthanasia once? could be asked. It whitethorn be vexed to know where to draw the line people all over the place business leader start killing their grandparents because they are too oldin the name of love Situation ethics sometimes relies on spontaneity, however spontaneity can sometimes be misguided. It may turn out to be irrational and foolish.The abandonment of rules may in turn reduce situation ethics to antinomianism. It may lead to a state of moral flux as rules play an important part in sociological maintenance. It is also been decided that there are certain examples of absolutes. Take rape, child abuse and genocide, these are all examples of absolutes that are wrong and under no circumstance would they be right. You would not be able to justify this with love. It is often instead big(a) to understand exactly what is meant by the meaning of love. It can be expectant to know what they most loving thing to do is. It is also hard to know what the most loving thing is in terms of the consequence. How can we visit all the consequences of an action? This can be shown by euthanasia. enunciate their was a man who had aids and had only a 5% chance of get unwrap again, he approached his friend and asked him if he would end his life for him. What happens if he got better?Even if there is only a very tiny chance there is still a chance. The man business leader suddenly make a recovery and go on to lead a long and prosperous life. How can we predict t he consequences? It is also hard when attempting to share love out fairly in a particular situation. This can also be shown by this example of euthanasia it is hard to know what is the best for the person, friends and family. It might be best for the man but what might be best for him might not necessarily be the most loving thing for the family or their friends. It is also quite hard to view a situation from a totally unbiased perspective.There is a possibility that a decision could be made selfishly with or without realising it but as its in the name of love it is justifiable. This again makes the terminus ad quem for love very hard to distinguish. It is also questionable as to whether it is possible for all members of society to judge each situations by its merits. A lot of time and competency has to go into the decision this isnt always accessible to everyone. How practical is situation ethics? Finally on what basis is it possible for the situationist to make moral decisions? What happens when there are no ultimate ethical principles? The situationist is making prejudiced decisions based potentially on personal whims. An example of a danger caused by this can be seen in the actions of Adolf Hitler and his attitude towards the Jews in the Second introduction War.For those who felt that situation ethics went to farther in attempting to set itself free from any conception of law, there is an approach that combines both theories of natural law and of situation ethics. This approach is known as proportionalsim. Proportionalists hold the belief that there are particular situations where moral rules should be abided to unless there is a harmonious reason for not contending with them.This reason would be grounded in the situation itself. In this way the primary precepts of natural law could be accepted (e.g. killing, stealing, lying etc) as the ground rules unless there was a sufficient reason for not doing so. Proportionalists hold a perish distinction betw een moral and non-moral acts. For example proportionalists would say abortion is wrong, but it may be morally right in the circumstances of that situation. However unlike situationalists they say that love does not then make a wrong action right. Furthermore they still incur the same problems that situationalists facial expression in trying to determine what bests serves love in a situation, and on making decisions by selfish means.