AS Ethics
Model Answer
Booklet
 Utilitarianism
 Situation Ethics
Utilitarianism
1.
a) Explain Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a teleological and relativistic theory which can be traced back to the writings of
Jeremy Bentham at the start of the 19th century. Bentham’s brand of Utilitarianism, sometimes
referred to as Act Utilitarianism is based upon the principle of utility. This principle maintains
that an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Happiness
for Bentham equated pleasure and in order to calculate this pleasure he used the Hedonistic
Calculus.
Bentham was a hedonist who believed that man was motivated by a desire to achieve pleasure
and avoid pain – ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters;
pleasure and pain’. He therefore concluded that an act was right/moral /just only in so far as it
created more pleasure than pain. Bentham believed that everyone’s pleasure was to be
considered equally. This made his theory of Act Utilitarianism somewhat revolutionary in that it
was based on this democratic notion of equality in a time when there was widespread
discrimination and inequality in British society. Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism aimed to measure
the quantity of pleasure and pain experienced in any given situation in order to work out what
the best course of action was.
Bentham believed it was indeed possible in this era of great scientific discovery to accurately
calculate the quantity of pleasure/pain involved using the Hedonistic Calculus. There are seven
aspects to the Hedonistic Calculus which, according to Bentham, if applied correctly would
produce accurate results. These relate to purity, remoteness, richness, intensity, certainty,
extent and duration. An example will help to make this clear. If a terrorist had planted a bomb in
a town centre it could be argued that it is morally right to torture the terrorist in order to find
out where exactly the bomb is located so that the security forces could defuse the bomb before
it exploded killing lots of innocent people. The pain experienced by that one individual would
arguably be considerably less than the suffering and death potentially caused to many if the
bomb exploded. Let us now look at this example in a step by step manner in order to further our
knowledge and understanding of Act Utilitarianism.
The pleasure of remaining alive and injury free would certainly create an intense feeling of joy
and relief not just in the short term but in the future also when people remember and
appreciate what happened as opposed to what might have happened. There would also be a
richness to the pleasure in that by surviving a person is free to enjoy future pleasures i.e. get
married, have kids, go on holidays etc. the duration of such pleasures could extend over many
years and affect many different people i.e. friends, family, colleagues etc. In such an extreme
case it would seem fair to conclude that when the pleasure and pain of those directly involved in
this situation is measured the torturing of the terrorist is justified.
Of course applying the Hedonistic Calculus and obtaining accurate results would to some extent
depend on the situation. Whilst the example just given might produce clear and easy to
determine results other situations might prove rather more difficult for example in the cases of
abortion, euthanasia or the legalization of cannabis. Nevertheless Bentham was adamant that if
the Hedonistic Calculus was applied in a calm and methodical manner it would produce accurate
results.
Act Utilitarianism is therefore teleological/consequentialist in nature in that it focuses on
outcomes. It is also relative in that ‘goodness’ is determined by pleasure and what pleases one
person may not please another. For example some people obtain pleasure from poetry, drinking
fine wine and attending the opera whereas others prefer reading comics, drinking cheap larger
and watching football. This has led some people to conclude that Act Utilitarianism is practical,
democratic and egalitarian whereas others have been somewhat less complementary.
b) ‘Utilitarianism’s teleological approach to ethics fails to work in today’s world’.
Assess this claim
Claims that Utilitarianism’s teleological approach to ethics fails to deliver successes in the
modern world will always stimulate great controversy and debate. I will endeavor to analyse and
evaluate this statement by looking at the key evidence in order to arrive at a logical and well
supported conclusion.
There is little doubt that Utilitarian principles are widely used by people in the modern world as
they struggle to make ethical decisions. Arguably it is fair to say that when faced with moral
dilemmas people will naturally try to weigh up the pros and cons of any given situation whilst at
the same time attempting to predict the likely outcome of any course of action. An example or
two will make this clear. President Truman authorised the dropping of two atomic bombs on
Japan during WWII after considerable soul searching and deliberation. He did so on the grounds
that it was reasonable to predict what the future outcome would be following such drastic
action. Many would die in the short term but this would hasten the surrender of Japan bringing
the war to an end and thus saving many more lives in the long run. Arguably this is precisely
what happened as the ending of the war brought the greatest happiness to the greatest number
of people.
Today governments and those that run schools, hospitals and other public services often use a
teleological/consequentialist approach to ethical decision making similar to that advocated by
Utilitarianism. For example when NHS managers decide how limited budgets should be spent
they will try to measure what course of action will benefit most people for the longest period of
time and then act accordingly. Provided this is done correctly the decision made would arguably
be democratic (most happiness), fair and just. The well being of all is taken into account and the
needs/wants of the majority satisfied. On this basis Utilitarianism seems to work.
Critics though will point out that a teleological approach to ethics is fraught with danger. With
the best possible will in the world no one can predict the future with any great degree of
certainty. Miscalculations, sod’s law, unforeseen circumstances all have a nasty habit of ruining
the best laid plans. For example the governors of a school today might decide that it would be
better for the whole school community to spend money on a new building rather than the latest
training for staff. However a fire or freak flooding might destroy this new building shortly after
completion, something that the governors had no way of predicting/knowing. Arguably on this
basis then Utilitarianism does not seem to work well in today’s world.
Furthermore there are those in the modern world that would point out that any decision making
process based on Utilitarian principles will ultimately result in discrimination against minorities.
Even when Mill’s principles of harm and universalisability are introduced the ‘happiness’ of
minorities will still be ignored. This is arguably unjust and might lead to resentment and
eventual confrontation.
In conclusion it is perhaps fair to say that in many cases in the modern world Utilitarianism’s
teleological approach to ethics is applied and works relatively well. However it would be folly to
deny that such an approach is without its faults as indicated above. Arguably no ethical theory is
without certain flaws that affect how it works and perhaps Utilitarianism’s practical and relative
nature make it simply the best of a bad bunch!
2.
a) Explain the difference between Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a relativistic theory that can be sub divided into two main parts – Act and Rule.
Whilst both remain teleological and consequentialist in nature and both subscribe to the
principle of utility significant differences between these two branches of Utilitarianism exist. I
will now compare and contrast each in order to highlight these differences.
Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the founding father of utilitarianism in general and the
main exponent of Act Utilitarianism in particular. Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is broadly made
up of three main elements. Firstly he assumes that mankind is motivated by a desire to seek
pleasure and avoid pain – ‘nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters; pleasure and pain’. Secondly he maintains that in order to work out what a person
must do in any given situation they ought to follow the principle of utility. This principle states
that an action is right provided it creates the ‘greatest happiness (which equates to pleasure for
Bentham) for the greatest number’. Finally Bentham argued that it was possible to
measure/weigh the amount of happiness created by using the Hedonistic Calculus.
Bentham looked at each situation in isolation and attempted to make a judgment about what
the correct course of action was based solely on the merits of that particular situation. The
relative nature of each situation allows for different outcomes. If applied correctly the Hedonist
Calculus would determine what the best course of action was in any given situation. For example
in the case of a young girl who has been raped and is considering having an abortion she ought
to consider the potential pleasure/pain involved in terms of purity, richness, remoteness,
intensity, certainty, extent and duration before making a decision. Therefore she would
ascertain if her choice was completely free from pain or not, if it would lead to future pleasure, if
others would receive pleasure too, how long any pleasure/pain might last etc. If applied
correctly (rigorously/scientifically) Bentham believed the right course of action would be
uncovered.
Mill took a somewhat different approach to Utilitarianism. Whilst aiming to remain loyal to the
principle of utility Mill felt certain amendments and improvements needed to be made to
Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism. Mill therefore introduced Rule Utilitarianism. Rather than focus
solely on the possible/predicted consequences of a particular situation Mill felt it was necessary
to look at the wider implications that any particular decision might have especially in relation to
justice. An example will make this clear. If a student was considering cheating in an exam it is
possible using Act Utilitarianism to come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do.
He/she passes the exam, gets a place at university, achieves more qualifications, secures a
career, achieves a higher standard of living etc. Failure to cheat may mean failure, rejection from
university, parental disapproval/disappointment, fewer job prospects etc.
However Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism would most probably come to a totally different conclusion.
Mill would apply the principle of universalisability. This means he would consider what the
consequences would be if all pupils in a similar situation acted in this manner. Arguably the pain
caused to society in general would far outweigh any happiness/pleasure obtained by the
individuals in question. Qualifications would become meaningless, ill suited people would go on
to do courses, careers etc. that they are incapable of doing properly and lies and deceit would
become the order of the day. This would surely have widespread damaging repercussion on
society in general and would probably therefore be considered wrong according to the principle
of utility.
In short Mill proposed that general rules (e.g. the harm principle) should be used as guides in
decision making concerning moral actions rather than using the Hedonistic Calculus. If moral
actions are guided by rules that everyone follows, then this will lead to the greatest overall
happiness and the creation of a fairer and more just society. There are certain rules Mill argued
that promote happiness, such as keeping promises or not stealing. Rule Utilitarianism suggests
that a person should follow established rules and consider the practical consequences of an
action before carrying it out – Bentham made no such allowances.
Rule Utilitarianism, whilst distinctly different from Act Utilitarianism can be interpreted/applied
on two levels. There are Strong and Weak rules. Strong Rule Utilitarianism says that certain rules
have universal value and should virtually always be kept. Weak Rule Utilitarianism argues that
there will sometimes be circumstances in which it would be better to allow for exceptions to
these universal rules. This is a situationist approach which believes that there are no absolutes
or intrinsic moral commands.
Thus it would seem overall that key differences exist between Mill and Bentham’s brands of
Utilitarianism. Ultimately it would appear that Mill is significantly less of a relativist than
Bentham but stops short of being considered a true absolutist.
b) ‘Using Utilitarianism as a basis of moral decision making promotes justice’.
Assess this view.
When it comes to the promotion of justice no ethical theory is without its critics and
Utilitarianism is no exception. However there are many that would argue that despite its short
comings Utilitarianism does for the most part promote justice. Bentham, Mill, Singer and Hare
would all claim that because Utilitarianism pursues the ‘greatest happiness for the greatest
number’ then it is more likely to create outcomes that are just.
Bentham no doubt would highlight the democratic nature of the principle of utility. He would
also point out that his brand of Utilitarianism was egalitarian in that everyone’s pleasure was
regarded as equal. Given that he was writing in a time when British society was largely
undemocratic and grossly elitist it is easy to see why a morality based on Utilitarian principles
may be perceived as being just.
There is also little doubt that in the modern world many of the moral decisions facing society are
dealt with using a Utilitarian framework. For example think of how budgets are allocated and
spent in areas such as the NHS, education and on law and order. Politicians, judges, leading civil
servants and managers make decisions based on what they hope will create the greatest
happiness to the greatest number. Take the example of those that commit heinous crimes such
as rape or child molestation. These people are often given lengthy prison sentences (and rightly
so) because this is what not only the majority in society demands but what justice demands.
Prison also ensures that the innocent majority are protected from a cruel and wicked minority.
Likewise health chiefs believe it is right/just to spend money on equipment and training that will
benefit most patients even though some other patients might be disadvantaged as a result.
Utilitarianism it would seem is widely used because it is fair and just especially if Mill’s version of
Rule Utilitarianism is adopted because this includes his principles relating to ‘universalisability’
and ‘harm’. This protects minorities against abuses inflicted on them by a majority and
encourages the pursuit of more noble intellectual pleasures.
Although having said all that absolutists would argue that ‘what is popular is not always right’
(Romans 12:2). Deontologists would often be appalled at a moral decision making process that
allowed unjust acts in the short term even if they did bring about a just outcome for an
approving majority. Also thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas would reject any
idea that justice is created by satisfying desires and pleasures. They would say that justice does
produce human happiness (eudemonia) but their understanding of the term happiness is far
removed from the crude self satisfying pleasure seeking happiness so often associated with
Utilitarianism.
3.
a) Explain how Bentham and Mill used differing ways of measuring pleasure
Bentham and Mill are arguably the two most famous exponents of Utilitarianism. Both based
their theories on the principle of utility which claims that something is right/good if it creates the
‘greatest happiness for the greatest number’. This fundamental principle makes Utilitarianism a
relativistic and consequentialist theory. Bentham and Mill generally agreed that ‘happiness’ was
connected to the fulfillment of pleasure. However they disagreed about the nature and value of
that pleasure and how it was to be measured.
Bentham advocated Act Utilitarianism. He believed that each individual situation was to be
considered in complete isolation to any other situation (extreme relativism). Only the
pleasure/pain of the people directly involved was to be measured using the Hedonistic Calculus.
The Hedonistic Calculus considers seven aspects of the happiness/pleasure – purity, remoteness,
richness, intensity, certainty, extent and duration. A practical example will make this clearer. A
poor mother is considering stealing some baby food from a supermarket in order to feed her
starving child. Arguably by acting in this way her child will get fed (certainty). However she might
get caught and the food will be removed! If she does manage to get the food arguably her child
will live and this could lead to future happiness (extent, richness and duration). On the other
hand this will only feed the child for a day or so and unless her situation alters drastically she will
find herself facing the same dilemma in a day or so. Also when weighing up the pleasure/pain
involved the role of the shop keeper would have to be taken into account also. In all probability
in this situation I think Bentham’s Act utilitarianism would allow the theft to take place.
Bentham and Mill viewed pleasure differently and this is important when it comes to measuring.
Bentham believed that all pleasures were equal and that no one’s pleasure should count for
more than any others. Many would say this made it democratic and egalitarian. Bentham
therefore focused on the quantity of pleasure involved when measuring. Mill though took a
somewhat different approach. Instead of taking a quantative approach Mill focused on the
quality of the pleasure involved too. He once famously declared ‘it is better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’. Mill made a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He
believed intellectual pleasures such as those given by reading poetry, listening to classical music
or painting a picture were greater than those lower pleasures produced by physical things such
as eating, drinking and having sex. Some though might consider this approach somewhat
snobbish and elitist.
Mill also used a method of calculation that was different to Bentham. Again an example will
make this clear. Let’s again look at the woman contemplating stealing baby food from the
supermarket to feed her starving child. Unlike Bentham Mill will consider the wider implication
of this act. Mill believed that there were general rules in society that ought to be followed
because they created the greatest good/happiness for all those in society in general. In short
these general rules were not just concerned with pleasure but with justice. These would include
rules such as not harming others, stealing, telling lies etc. On this basis Mill would arguably claim
that the woman would be wrong to steal despite her particular set of circumstances because if
everyone in a similar situation acted in this way complete chaos would unfold and this could
potentially result in the breakdown of law and order and the destruction of society as we know
it.
Although I think it is worth mentioning that these general rules outlined by Mill were by no
means absolute rules, Mill is after all a relativist. Mill accepted that there were strong and weak
rules. Again an example will demonstrate what I mean. Let’s consider the telling of lies. Mill
would probably argue that people telling the truth is in most people’s interest most of the time
making truth telling a fairly strong rule. However I feel he would allow for this to be weakened
and even broken in certain situations. For example if Nazis asked you where a Jewish family was
hiding it would be for the greater good if you lied in this situation.
It is therefore apparent that Bentham and Mill whilst both adopting a Utilitarian approach to
ethics went about making moral decisions in a fairly different way. They held different views on
the nature of pleasure (Mill making the distinction between higher and lower pleasures whereas
Bentham did not). They also measured pleasures in a different manner too. Bentham used the
Hedonistic Calculus whereas Mill applied his general rules to situations. It is precisely these
differences that make utilitarianism so interesting and appealing to so many.
b) ‘Utilitarianism is incompatible with a religious approach to ethics’
Assess this view
This is a somewhat contentious statement and like all contentious statements it is the source of
much discussion and debate. The crux of the problem seems to be to what extent can we truly
say anything is compatible or not with a religious approach to ethics given that most religions
themselves are so diverse? Take Christianity for example. There are elements that are
deontological and absolute in nature whereas other parts are teleological and relative. This will
become clearer as I consider the compatibility of Utilitarianism with Christianity.
Initially a person might claim that Utilitarianism and Christianity are ill suited because
Utilitarianism focuses primarily on the pursuit of happiness/pleasure whereas Christianity is
primarily concerned with fulfilling God’s will. Furthermore Utilitarianism is a relative and
teleological theory that arguably allows/promotes certain injustices in the short term if it brings
about a greater good. In other words it puts forward an attitude whereby the ‘ends justify the
means’. This seems to be at complete odds not just with Christianity but with most of the major
world religions that tend to be deontological in nature. An example will make this clear. Act
Utilitarianism would allow for the sacrificing of one if a greater number were to be saved as a
direct result. It was on this very basis that President Truman gave the go ahead for the dropping
of atomic weapons on Japan. The rational being that thousands would die instantly, Japan would
surrender and the war would end thus saving an even greater number of lives in the long term.
Whilst this line of reasoning may be compatible with Utilitarianism the deliberate annihilation of
tens of thousands of innocent men woman and children is at complete odds with the basic
teachings of Christianity – ‘love your neighbour’, ‘do onto others as you would have them do
onto you’, ‘blessed are the peacemakers’ etc. The story of the Good Shepherd is also applicable
here. The Good Shepherd leaves the 99 sheep to go and look for the single lost sheep. This again
seems to be at complete odds with Utilitarian beliefs and practices.
In saying this though one could with some justification argue that whilst Act Utilitarianism seems
incompatible with Christianity the same cannot be said of Rule utilitarianism. Mill was all too
aware of the potential injustices of Act Utilitarianism and tried to overcome these by introducing
his ‘harm principle’ and the principle of universalisability. Mill believed that his general rules
were similar to the Golden Rule (‘treat others the way you would like to be treated’) of
Christianity. Mill would also claim that if considered correctly the principle of utility was not
based on selfishness but rather a more noble and altruistic principle that sought human well
being (happiness) for the vast majority.
Perhaps Utilitarianism, particularly Bentham’s brand is incompatible with certain aspects of
Christianity (and other major faiths) such as the absolute and deontological commandments
given by Moses. However Rule Utilitarianism seems much more compatible especially if we
focus on more teleological teachings evident in Christianity such as those found in the Sermon
on the Mount – ‘Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth…….. Blessed are the
merciful for they will be shown mercy’. Other teachings such as the parable of the Sheep and the
Goats are also very teleological in nature in that it prescribes actions that result in salvation
(consequentialist). All in all I don’t feel it fair to say definitively whether Utilitarianism is
compatible with Christian approach to ethics or not in that there are aspects of both that marry
up quite nicely but at the same time there remains aspects in each that seem to be at complete
odds with each other.
4.
a) Explain why some religious believers might accept Utilitarianism whilst others might not
A religious believer is only ever going to accept an ethical theory such as Utilitarianism if it
proven to be similar and therefore compatible with the basic teachings of that particular faith.
Take Christianity for example; there are certainly aspects of Utilitarianism that seem to be in line
with this faith however there are aspects of Utilitarianism that also seem to contradict the basic
teachings of the Christian faith. I will now outline some of these similarities and differences in
order to arrive at an informed conclusion about whether or not religious believers might accept
Utilitarianism.
On the one hand Utilitarianism is based on the principle of utility which seeks to create ‘the
greatest happiness for the greatest number’. Some might argue that similarities can be made
here to the ‘Golden Rule’ of Christianity which is to ‘treat others the way you would like to be
treated’. Both seem to be altruistic in nature in that they seek to establish a common good for
mankind. Arguably both would help create a more just, equal and fairer society for all thus
allowing some religious believers to accept Utilitarianism. In addition Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism
would seem to promote general rules for society similar to the Ten Commandments – don’t
steal, kill, commit adultery etc. The logic for Mill here is that if everyone was to act in this
manner then it would create greater pain than pleasure across society and again this would
seemingly appeal to many religious believers.
These comparisons between Mill’s brand of Utilitarianism and Christianity may even be taken a
step further. Some people including certain religious believers might argue that Mill’s higher
pleasure could be linked to spiritual development over physical pleasures. For example fasting is
practiced in most religions and making sacrifices of one sort or another too is often encouraged.
These are justified on the grounds that they enable people to become more spiritually focused
enabling them to develop a sense of awe and wonder instead of simply satisfying basic
animalistic appetites and desires. Focusing on the quality of the pleasures enjoyed by mankind
would indeed seem to reflect the moral teachings of the Christian faith. For example Jesus
himself warned his followers not to become fixated on material wealth but instead to think and
act in ways that ‘stored riches in heaven’.
However having said all this some religious believers would rightly point out that these
similarities are ill founded. At the end of the day Utilitarianism is a relativistic theory that in
principle would in certain situations seem to allow for abuses against minorities and perhaps
even allow lying, stealing and even killing if it could somehow be shown to create a greater
happiness for a greater number. This is certainly the case if we were to analyse Bentham’s brand
of Act Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism promotes a teleological viewpoint that is at complete odds
with the deontological stance taken by many religious believers. Christianity takes a
deontological and absolute approach to things like murder. Christianity maintains that murder
cannot be justified no matter how many people may argue otherwise “what is right is not always
what is popular” (Romans 12:2).
Furthermore Utilitarianism is a secular theory. It makes not direct reference to the will of God,
the teachings of Jesus Christ, Holy Scripture or the traditions of the Church. This makes
Christianity and Utilitarianism fundamentally different and this key difference cannot be simply
glossed over regardless of the number of similarities that seem to exist between the two leading
some religious believers to reject Utilitarianism.
It would therefore seem that on one level certain similarities and comparisons can be drawn
between Christianity and Utilitarianism as outlined above which would allow for some religious
believers to accept Utilitarianism. However I feel it fair to say that considerable difference exist
perhaps not to the extent that would make these mutually exclusive to each other but
nevertheless I can’t see how a secular, teleological and relativistic theory can be reconciled with
a religious doctrine which is for the most part absolute and deontological.
b) Utilitarianism has too many weaknesses to make it useful
Assess this view.
Like all ethical theories Utilitarianism stimulates considerable debate and controversy.
Supporters will claim that due to its subjective and relative nature Utilitarianism is a practical
theory that can be applied to any type of situation thus making it very useful when it comes to
making decisions. However critics will claim that it is precisely these characteristics that lead to
inconsistencies and conflict. I will now attempt to assess these opposing viewpoints before
forming some sort of conclusion about the usefulness of Utilitarianism.
Supporters of Utilitarianism will claim that it is useful because it has widespread appeal.
Utilitarianism is a secular doctrine that is open to all regardless of creed, colour, gender or
sexuality. It is also very useful because for the most part it is a fairly straightforward theory that
is easy to understand and to put into practice. Utilitarianism does not demand from people
years or arduous study and training. Also when put into practice it provides answers to difficult
dilemmas in a fairly short period of time. These features make Utilitarianism not only appealing
to so many but also useful.
Further evidence to support the usefulness of Utilitarianism lies in the fact that it is used so
commonly in the world today. Most people when they find themselves in a position whereby
they are struggling to make a moral decision will try to weigh up the pros and the cons of the
particular situation. They will also probably try to consider what the various ramifications will be
to any decision they make not just for themselves but for other too. This often involves trying to
predict the eventual outcome a decision/action will lead to. For example individuals, politicians,
budget holders in schools, hospitals and households often make decision based on an attempted
calculation as to what they hope will create the greatest good/happiness/pleasure for the most
people involved.
Critics of Utilitarianism though would quickly point out that many of these so called strengths
are in fact the Achilles’ heel of Utilitarianism. Being relative it produces inconsistencies and this
is confusing. Also being teleological it relies on speculation and educated guess work in
attempting to predict future outcomes. Problem is though that predicting the future is a very
precarious business. For example just ask the speculator who lost millions on the stock exchange
or the punter who lost their wages on ‘the favourite’ in the 3:15 at Ascot. Things often fail to go
to plan and this is where we get phrases such as ‘it all went pear shaped’ or ‘the road to hell in
paved with good intentions’.
Furthermore the measuring process used to weigh up potential pleasure/pain is far from
accurate/scientific. Simply try to apply the Hedonistic Calculus and it soon becomes apparent
how unsuited/useless it is to the job in hand. Finally a weakness associated with utilitarianism is
the fact that it allows a minority to suffer if the majority benefit and for many people this is
simply unjust.
I think it fair to say that whilst utilitarianism does have a number of weaknesses it still can, and
does provide a useful way of helping people make decisions. No ethical theory is without its
problems and utilitarianism is no exception but given that it is largely democratic, pragmatic,
and relatively easy to apply in any given situation it is useful and therefore popular.
Situation Ethics
1.
a) Explain why Situation Ethics is considered to be a consequentialist and relativistic theory
Arguably the main reason why Situation Ethics is considered as a consequentialist and relativistic
theory is because it is both a reaction to and a rejection of legalism. Legalism generally is
authorative, deontological and absolute in nature. Legalism is characterized by strict guidelines,
rules and regulations a good example of which would be the modern world’s obsession with health
and safety laws. Situation Ethics tends to be more flexible and accommodating of different courses
of action provided the consequences reflect love.
One of the four working principles of Situation Ethics is relativism. This principle maintains that
different courses of actions can be carried out in different situations provided the needs of love are
served. It is precisely this relativism that makes Situation Ethics practical also (pragmatism - another
one of the four working principles). An example will make this clear. Stealing is generally considered
to be wrong in that it tends to cause pain and suffering to the victims and it also creates distrust and
suspicion in society generally. However Situation Ethics would allow, even encourage, theft if the
particular situation demanded it in order for the needs of love to be served. For example in the wake
of some natural disaster i.e. earthquake, flood, volcano etc. it may be necessary to break into a store
and steal items of clothing, food or medical supplies in order to protect and preserve human life.
Whilst in normal circumstances theft is viewed as morally wrong these views are suspended
according to Situation Ethics because this particular situation demands that a different approach is
taken.
If one looks at the six fundamental principles of Situation Ethics it becomes even clearer why this
theory is considered to be a consequentialist and relativistic theory. Principles such as ‘only the end
justifies the means and nothing else’ clearly show the teleological and consequentialist nature of
Situation Ethics. Situation Ethics is concerned with a loving outcome because as one of the other
fundamental principles informs us ‘only one thing is intrinsically good, love and nothing else’.
Fletcher believed this approach to ethics mirrored that of Jesus. Rudolf Bultmann (an inspirational
influence on Fletcher) had commented that ‘Jesus had no moral ethic’. By this he meant that Jesus
did not simply or blindly follow the laws of the Torah, of which there are many including those quite
literally written in stone (Ten Commandments). Instead Jesus was guided by love. This was made
explicit when Jesus was asked ‘which is the greatest commandment?’ To the shock and horror of the
Pharisees and Scribes Jesus did not identify one of the existing laws but instead replied ‘love God
and love you neighbor as you love yourself’. Jesus did not prescribe how or when. This open ended
response formed the bedrock on which Situation Ethics is based.
Another of the six fundamental principles of Situation Ethics that further characterise its
consequentialist and relative nature is ‘love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively’.
This again clearly states that the right course of action (the loving thing to do) may vary from one
situation to another. In other words a person ought not simply to follow a rule or a law just because
it is a rule or a law. Again the example of Jesus clearly demonstrated this point. Jesus was prepared
to forgive sins (The Paralysed Man Mk 2:1-12) despite this being considered blasphemous by the
teachers of the law because it served a greater good. He also allowed his disciples to ‘work’ on the
Sabbath (Mk 2:23-28) and he himself healed on the Sabbath (Mk 3:1-6) to the disgust and outrage of
the teachers of the law. Jesus responded to such indignation by pointing out that ‘the Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath’. Fletcher literally took these remarks to heart and
constructed his theory around them which could be summed up as follows; do what is loving not
what is lawful.
There is little doubt that Situation Ethics is a consequentialist and relativistic theory. Fletcher did not
want to be restricted by the rigid and impersonal approach to ethics that characterised so many
other ethical theories including those within the Christian tradition e.g. Catholicism’s heavy reliance
on the Natural law and the Catechisms of the Church or some Protestant traditions dependence on
scripture. Instead he opted for a theory that he considered to be personal, relative and practical.
b) ‘Situation Ethics provides a poor basis for making moral decisions’
Assess this view
This is a provocative statement and like all provocative statements will stimulate great debate and
controversy. On the one hand many absolutists would no doubt agree with this claim because
Situation Ethics is a relativistic theory that allows for flexibility and diversity when it comes to making
moral decisions and this could lead to moral anarchy. Whereas supporters of Situation Ethics will
argue that it is precisely this practical and relative approach along with some other key
characteristics that make Situation Ethics such a good basis for making moral decisions. I will
endeavor to analyse and evaluate these conflicting responses.
Supporters of Situation Ethics will claim that the theory is personal and positive. Situation Ethics
encourages people to be altruistic rather than egotistical. Giving to those in need is regarded as
being intrinsically good unlike the act of giving in order to receive something in return (reciprocal).
This philanthropist approach to ethics will bring great benefits to those that are in most need in
society. For example people will respond to charity appeals in a loving and compassionate way.
Situation Ethics therefore places trust in individuals to make the correct moral decisions. It also gives
them the freedom and responsibility to respond in a loving manner. As the Anglican Bishop John
Robinson said it would enable ‘man to come of age’.
Situation Ethics is also positive, personal, pragmatic and relative. Hence the individual is given the
freedom to act in a manner that is best suited to bringing about a loving outcome. People are not
restricted by a whole series of absolute laws that are restricting and impersonal. For example
someone could kill if the situation allowed i.e. self defense, the protection of others etc. Whereas
strict absolute and deontological commands such as ‘thou shall not kill’ seemingly provide no such
flexibility. In addition Situation Ethics whilst being primarily a Christian theory is in no way restricted
to Christians or people of other faiths. As the atheist Bertrand Russell remarked ‘love himself can
work in those that know nothing of him’. This makes Situation Ethics inclusive and thus adds further
to its appeal as a good basis for making moral decisions.
Of course not everyone would agree with this viewpoint. Many, including Hobbes, Machiavelli and
Nietzsche would laugh at suggestions of an ethical theory based on love. They maintain a relative
viewpoint also but one that claims ‘might is right’. They view people as being motivated by greed
and aggression not love, compassion and empathy.
Many absolutists would also reject Situation Ethics claiming that people need clear rule and
regulations to help make morals decisions. In times of ethical uncertainty Catholics turn to the
Natural Law and the teachings of the church. This provides guidance and creates consistency in
moral behaviour among people. They would for example argue that any violation of the sanctity of
life i.e. abortion, euthanasia, death penalty etc is intrinsically evil and ought never to be construed as
‘loving’ regardless of the situation/outcome. Professor Graham Dunstan, a fierce critic of Situation
Ethics lambasted SCM press for publishing Fletcher’s work because he feared it would lead to moral
anarchy because people would be free to decide for themselves what ‘love/agape’ was.
I believe that any relativistic and consequentialist ethical theory on which to base moral decisions
will always be open to criticism. Subjectivism inevitably leads to inconsistencies and conflict. Fletcher
himself recognised this when he stated that the ‘needs of love must always be served’. This is an
absolute principle leaving him open to a charge of hypocrisy and self contradiction. Furthermore
consequentailism is equally fraught with danger as it involves the extremely risky business of trying
to predict the future. As a result I do tend to think (and therefore agree with the statement in the
question) that Situation Ethics is a poor basis for making moral decisions.
2.
a) Outline the four working principles and six fundamental principles of Situation Ethics
In its simplest form Situation Ethics could be defined as an ethical theory based on the Christian idea
of love (agape). However a richer understanding of this ethical theory would take into account the
four working principles and the six fundamental principles which arguably provide Situation Ethics
with substance and depth. It is therefore imperative to outline each of these principles in order to
obtain a solid knowledge and understanding of this ethical theory.
The four working principles are 1)personalism, 2)pragmatism, 3)positivism and 4)relativism. I will
now outline each. Firstly Situation Ethics is considered to be personal in that it is a Christian ethic.
God created people in his image and likeness; there was nothing random or mechanical about this.
There is a personal connection between God and his creation. Likewise the Golden Rule of
Christianity teaches people to ‘treat others the way you would like to be treated’. People are seen as
ends in themselves never as a means to an end. Therefore Christian ethics would be against the
torturing (unloving) of some even if the majority benefited in some way.
Supporters of Situation Ethics would argue that ‘it is good because it works’ (pragmatic). As Fletcher
himself wrote ‘To be correct or right a thing - a thought or an action - must work. Yes. But to what
end, for what purpose, to satisfy what standard or ideal?’ (Situation Ethics p.42). Fletcher of course
answers this question. He maintains that an act is good if it involves, mirrors and produces a loving
end. As such it is fair and accurate to label Situation Ethics a relative doctrine which is another of the
working principles. Fletcher, unlike say Bentham does not subscribe to the attitude ‘anything goes’
provided it produces the desired outcome. However he maintains that it is sensible to be flexible
when it comes to prescribing actions because what produces a loving outcome in one situation may
not in another.
The final working principle is positivism. Fletcher believed that God is love (love is positive) and as a
Christian we are morally bound to follow the will of God. This he interpreted as - be loving and
experience love whenever and wherever possible. Jesus taught us to ‘love God’ and to ‘love one
another as you love yourself’. Fletcher argues that Situation Ethics puts faith in God and tries to work
out what the most loving thing to do is in any given situation – ‘Faith working through love’
(Galatians 5:6).
In addition to the four working principles of Situation Ethics there are six fundamental principles. As
you would expect these are centered on the concept of love and tend to compliment and overlap
one another. Arguably the first and perhaps most important of these principles is Fletcher’s claim
that ‘nothing is intrinsically good (good in itself) except love’. Love becomes the measure of all
things. It is arguably the only absolute standard put forward by Fletcher. From this other
fundamental principles flow such as ‘the ruling norm of Christian decision making is love’. Jesus
demonstrated this by his service of others and ultimate sacrifice on the cross. This was unconditional
love (agape) at work in the world for all to see. An example of this unconditional love is arguably the
war hero who throws himself on a grenade to smoother the explosion and in doing so save the lives
of his comrades. This itself is closely linked to another principle which is ‘Love wills the neighbour’s
good’. Therefore a person ought not to be envious of or spiteful towards others because this is
contrary to the nature of love.
Other fundamental principles include the claim that ‘love and justice are the same’. Without justice
there can never be a true and lasting peace in the world. Justice ensures respect for human life and
dignity. An example of this is arguably the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa that
investigated the evils of apartheid.
Finally there is the fundamental principle that ‘love’s decisions are made situationally, not
prescriptively’. Such a principle relates to the relativism of Situation Ethics (one of the four
previously mentioned working principles). In other words people are free to act in a variety of ways
provided that the needs of love are served. This is significantly different to the person who slavishly
follows rules, commands and laws.
These principles, both working and fundamental, provide detail and clarity to Situation Ethics. They
help us to learn, and perhaps more importantly put love into practice. Fletcher wanted mankind to
be loving and to experience love in the way that he believed God intended it. Fletcher presents us
with principles to advise and guide not to demand and dictate as is arguably the case with legalism.
b) ‘Greater use of situation Ethics would lead to a fairer society’
Assess this view.
Fletcher and those that support his theory of Situation Ethics would undoubtedly agree with this
statement. At the end of the day all those that put forward any ethical theory whether it is based
upon Utilitarian, Natural Law or Kantian principles do so because they believe it will lead to the
creation of a more just and fairer society. However as is the case with all ethical theories critics will
claim that no such outcome is possible because the theory is in some way fundamentally flawed. I
shall now evaluate Situation Ethics in light of this claim in the hope of arriving at a satisfactory
conclusion.
For some one of the most appealing aspects of Situation Ethics is that it is relative. This enables
moral decisions to be made based upon the unique merits of a particular situation regardless of
what decisions have been made in past similar situations. For example a legal system that imposed
the same punishment on everyone that killed another (absolute) would be unfair because in certain
cases the killing of another may be justified i.e. in the case of self defense or to protect the lives of
others. Absolutism arguably would allow for no exceptions here the law seems to be more important
than common sense! An example of this might be the famous case of Tony Martin the Norfolk
farmer who in 1999 shot at intruders in his home killing one. He was originally found guilty of
murder and sentenced to life in imprisonment. Many were outraged by this decision.
It could also be argued that Situation Ethics will lead to a fairer society because it is both personal
and positive. People are put first and the most loving solution sought. Supporters of Situation ethics
would say that due to the lack of love in the world suffering, pain and injustices prevail. As the title
of the famous Black Eyed Peas song asks ‘Where is the love?’ One need only watch the news on any
given night to come to the conclusion that we seemingly live in a world devoid of love. Fletcher
certainly thought that a fairer society (the kingdom of God here on earth) could be built on the
Christian concept of love – agape. This is evident when you look at the four working and six
fundamental principles of his theory. One of the six fundamental principles of Situation Ethics clearly
states that ‘Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed - nothing else’. Fletcher
claims that a just (fair) society treats everyone with respect, dignity and equality as demanded by
love.
Critics of Situation Ethics will say that this relative approach based on the principle of love will in no
way create a just and fair society. Many people are simply incapable of working out what the
demands of love are in particular situations because life is too complicated. That is why people need
laws, whether they are God’s laws or society’s. Legalism provides clear rules and regulations that
help to deliver structure, consistency and order. It condemns those that kill out of so called ‘love’ –
mercy killings, or who lie and steal because they thought it would create a loving consequence. All
consequentialist theories, including Situation Ethics attempt to predict the future and this is fraught
with danger. Despite intending to create a fair and loving outcome this may well go pear shaped as
the following proverb points out – ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’.
Others will argue that it is grossly naive to try and create a fair society based on Situation Ethics and
its obsession with love. Thinkers such as Calicles, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Freud etc. would
pour scorn on the idea that society was, is, or ever could be fair. They view human nature, not as
loving but as selfish, nasty egotistical and aggressive. If their view of humanity is correct there will
always be winners and losers in life just as there are in nature according to the ‘laws of the jungle’.
Furthermore if this view of humanity is correct then strict absolute laws are needed to keep mankind
in check.
Whilst the romantic in me would love to agree with the Beatles when they sang ‘all you need is love’
the realist in me says nice sentiment but it won’t create a just or fair society, the pointless
assassination of John Lennon is enough to tell us that. Love is an emotion albeit a powerful one but
this is subjective and often quite irrational. Whilst such relativism may provide certain freedoms and
choices it will in my opinion ultimately lead to disagreement and conflict and I don’t see how this
could ever possibly be the basis for a fair society.
3.
a) Explain how biblical passages may be used to support Situation Ethics
According to Joseph Fletcher love is the essence of the Christian faith it is therefore hardly surprising
that Fletcher constructed his theory of Situation Ethics around the Christian idea of love – agape.
Love is a theme that runs throughout the bible. In fact Jesus himself replaced all laws with his two
greatest commandments 1)’love God’ and 2) ‘love others as you love yourself’. I shall now identify a
number of key biblical passages and discuss their relevance in relation to whether or not they
support Situation Ethics.
Agape is Christian love. This type of love is unconditional. Agape is shown by the person who is
willing to give all and demands nothing in return. This type of love is selfless and is evident in a
number of important passages in the bible. For example in the story of the Good Samaritan the
Samaritan goes to considerable lengths to tend to the needs of not only a stranger but someone
who may have been considered an enemy. Why? He does so because he is filled with compassion,
empathy and most importantly the power of love. Personalism is one of Fletcher’s working principles
and this is epitomised here by the actions of the Good Samaritan. Fletcher maintains that the ‘needs
of loved must be served’ because as he points out in his fundamental principles ‘love is the only
thing that is intrinsically good’. The Good Samaritan certainly recognises and appreciates this and
this is reflected in his actions.
Jesus too demonstrates his unconditional love for others on numerous occasions throughout the
Gospels. For example he forgave the greed and deceit of the tax collectors Zacchaeus and Matthew.
He forgave the immoral living of the woman about to be stoned (‘let he who is without sin cast the
first stone’) and the woman at the well. In the latter story the well itself is a symbol of love; it was
after all by a well that Moses first meets his future wife in the Old Testament. Then of course there is
the numerous examples when Jesus showed love to those in need of healing – the paralysed man,
blind Bartimaeus, the lepers, those possessed with evil spirits, the woman with the hemorrhage,
Jairus’ daughter etc. Jesus’ actions here would again seem to be consistent with the working and
fundamental principles of Situation Ethics. Situation Ethics states that love is the one thing that is
intrinsically good and Jesus’ actions in these biblical passages seem to support this viewpoint.
Jesus also proved himself to be anti legalistic on a number of occasions and this too would be in line
with Situation Ethics. For example Jesus cured the man with the withered hand in a synagogue on
the Sabbath much to the annoyance of the Pharisees who began plotting his death. He also allowed
his disciples to pick some ears of corn, an action that was in violation of Sabbath law. Jesus was of
the opinion that the ‘the Sabbath was made for the good of man; man was not made for the good of
the Sabbath’. Jesus often takes a relative and pragmatic approach to situations. He refuses to
slavishly follow rules instead preferring to act in ways that will bring about loving outcomes. The
consequential approach taken by Jesus in these biblical passages again seems to be in line with
Situation Ethics.
Agape, arguably the central component of Situation Ethics is clearly evident in the passage in John’s
Gospel (15:13) ‘Greater love has no one than this that he lay down his life for his friends’. Jesus did
exactly this as he sacrificed himself on the cross so that the sins of mankind would be forgiven. The
Christian message of selfless love was also reiterated by the early Church. St. Paul echoed the words
of Jesus when he said that ‘love does no harm to its neighbour for love is the fulfillment of the law’.
It therefore seems rather apparent from the numerous examples above that biblical passages may
be used to support Situation Ethics and this is undoubtedly what Fletcher and those that follow his
theory would do. In fact in order for Situation Ethics to be considered a Christian ethic which is what
Fletcher maintains then it is vital that biblical passages are used to support it.
b) ‘Religious believers should reject Situation Ethics’
Assess this view
To suggest that religious believers should reject Situation Ethics is a rather provocative claim that
would undoubtedly stimulate much controversy and debate. Given that religious believers come in
all shapes and sizes it would be reasonable to suggest that some religious believers will look
favourably upon Situation Ethics whereas others will denounce it as a heresy. I shall now analyse and
evaluate a selection of various responses by religious believers to Situation Ethics.
On the one hand Situation Ethics is anti legalistic and this will be appealing to certain religious
believers. For example Quakers are famous for their lack of absolute and deontological list of rules
and regulations that must be abided to. Quakers believe that there is no one set of beliefs and
practices that are right and therefore better than others. They maintain that the ‘spirit’ and ‘truth’ is
revealed and understood in different ways by different people. They are extremely tolerant of the
views and practices of others. Quakers tend to take a relativistic and consequentialist approach to
life similar to that advocated by Situation Ethics. I see no reason why they would be hostile to
Fletcher’s emphasis on doing the loving thing. Furthermore Fletcher’s working and fundamental
principles mirror a lot of what is to be found in Quaker Testimonies and Advices. These are general
statements that are offered to advice and guide Quakers. For example Quakers are encouraged to
live simply, peacefully and with integrity.
Situation Ethics rejection of legalism might also appeal to many within the Protestant traditions.
Given that Situation Ethics places trust in individuals to assess situations and decide for themselves
which course of action will best serve the needs of love it may be viewed as liberating and
empowering unlike more authorative approaches to religion i.e. Roman Catholicism or Orthodox
Judaism. Situation Ethics gives people the freedom and responsibility to respond in a loving manner
to those around them. The Anglican Bishop John Robinson said it would enable ‘man to come of
age’. Robinson like Fletcher sought to resist strict authority from ‘law makers’ and institutions which
he deemed damaging and oppressive.
However not all religious believers are as complimentary and supportive of Situation Ethics as Bishop
Robinson. Fletcher was condemned and castigated by many traditional Christian moralists who
totally reject Situation Ethics. Catholicism warns about the dangers of relativism - (sometimes
referred to as Cafeteria Catholicism). This method of decision-making was condemned in 1952 by
Pope Pius XII, who said it was wrong to make decisions based on individual circumstances if these
went against the teachings of the Church and the Bible. This view has been echoed by his successors
Pope John Paul II and more recently By Pope Benedict XVI. The Roman Catholic Church would argue
that people require clear guidelines on how they should behave as outlined by the Magisterium of
the Church in the traditional teaching of Natural Law. The fear here is that Situation Ethics could
result in moral anarchy. Professor Graham Dunstan went as far as saying SCM should never have
published Fletcher’s work because of this fear.
Given the diverse nature of religious believers it would be rather naive to assume that a universally
accepted approach to Situation Ethics (or any other ethical theory or issue for that matter) could be
achieved. Organised religion and those that follow this especially those of a fundamental nature are
more likely to reject Situation Ethics whereas religious believers from a less structured and more
liberal background would be somewhat more accommodating.
4.
a) Examine why Fletcher favoured agape love and rejected both ‘antinomianism’ and ‘legalism’
Fletcher was highly critical of traditional approaches to doing ethics. In particular he believed that
the two dominant methods namely legalism and antinomianism were inadequate because they
failed to focus on agape and therefore ought to be rejected. Fletcher believed that agape (selfless
love) lay at the heart of Christianity and therefore it seemed only logical to devise an ethical theory
that was built around this concept. Given that agape is the central component of Situation Ethics
Fletcher would maintain that his theory was the one true Christian ethic.
Fletcher rejected legalism because he considered it to be too rigid, dogmatic and impersonal. Strict
observation of a series of absolute and deontological laws would be to the detriment of humanity
according to Fletcher. Instead Fletcher used the example of Jesus himself to demonstrate that
legalism ought to be avoided. Jesus broke Sabbath laws when he healed the man with the withered
hand (Mk 3:1-6) and then allowed his disciples to pick ears of corn (Mk 2:23-28). Jesus pointed out
that ‘the Sabbath was made for man; man was not made for the Sabbath’. This infuriated the
Pharisees who then began to plot Jesus’ death. Jesus’ actions here lead Rudolf Bultman (an
influencing figure on Fletcher) to comment that ‘Jesus had no moral ethic’. By this he meant no
inflexible legalistic ethic. Instead Jesus acted out love (agape). Laws are all well and good but when
they cease to be a positive force on human well being then they ought to be discarded. This
approach to ethics has attracted severe criticism from Roman Catholicism which insists that the
teachings of the Church as outlined by the Magisterium ought to be followed.
Fletcher was equally critical of antinomianism and maintained that it too ought to be rejected.
Antinomianism states that all religious rules, regulations, authorities and institutions ought to be
abandoned. This allows people the autonomy to construct their own relativistic ethic based on their
unique individuality. Antinomianism is the complete antithesis of legalism. However its complete
disregard for any moral laws encouraged secularism and isolated individualism that was at odds with
Christianity. This ‘free thinking’ approach to ethics was potentially dangerous in that it could lead to
complete moral anarchy. Fletcher therefore maintained that a third way was needed. Instead of a
Christian ethic comprised of absolute laws, commandments and dictates by religious authorities
Fletcher proposed an ethic that was relative, personal, positive and pragmatic. However in order to
avoid the complete relativism of antinomianism Fletcher identified one single law that needed to be
followed – ‘the needs of love must always be observed’.
If legalism was the thesis, antinomianism the antithesis then Situation Ethics was to be the synthesis.
This theory was based upon agape (selfless love). Unlike other forms of love such as philia, storge
and eros agape has no personal gain for the person who shows love. Agape is non-preferential and
non-reciprocal (expects nothing in return); clearly such a view of ethics, living a life of selfless love, is
very demanding indeed. In order to successfully live a life according to agape Fletcher identified four
working and six fundamental principles that ought to be observed. The working principles
highlighted what Fletcher considered to be the advantages of Situation Ethics. In short it is 1)positive
– focusing on love because God is love and Jesus commanded us to be loving, 2)personal – in that it
puts people first not laws, 3)relative – it is flexible in that the merits of each particular situation are
taken into account before any moral decision is made and 4)pragmatic – it works. Whereas the
fundamental principles focus more explicitly on love itself. For example love is identified as the only
intrinsically good thing it is also considered to be central to Christianity. A comparison here is also
made between love and justice. The fundamental principles make it clear that actions are permitted
provided they bring about a loving outcome making Situation Ethics a teleological and
consequentialist theory. This gives people the freedom and responsibility to act in a loving manner.
In doing so Fletcher maintained people would be following in the footsteps of Jesus enabling them
to make moral decisions that would help create a just and loving society.
The faults and failings of legalism and antinomianism are clearly outlined by Fletcher and these
ultimately lead him to reject both. In his attempt to overcome these short comings Fletcher put
forward his theory of Situation Ethics based on Christian love – agape.
b) The main strength of Situation Ethics is that it is easy to apply to any situation’
Assess this view
Supporters of Situation Ethics would undoubtedly claim that a main strength of this theory lies in its
relative nature. Being a relative theory Situation Ethics provides freedom and flexibility enabling it to
be easily applied to a vast variety of situations. However some supporters may claim that even
greater strengths lay elsewhere within the theory for example its focus on agape. Whereas critics are
quick to point out that just because something is easy to apply it does not necessarily follow that
what has been applied is correct. I will now analyse and evaluate this statement further in order to
arrive at a logical conclusion.
A relative theory such as Situation Ethics allows for different moral decisions to be made depending
on the particular circumstances of any given situation. This flexibility and easy to apply approach to
ethics arguably makes Situation Ethics an attractive and appealing proposition to many. Whereas
absolute ethical theories on the other hand provide a ‘one size fits all’ approach to ethical decision
making which can and often does result in actions that seem to lack basic common sense. For
example the absolute and deontological commandment ‘thou shall not kill’ fails to recognise and
appreciate that in certain situations killing is arguably necessary and morally right i.e. as a form of
self defense, to protect the lives of others, during a ‘Just war’ etc. Given that no two situations are
completely identical (there may be similarities) it seems practical and prudent to adopt a relativistic
approach to ethics which is for the most part easy to apply.
However others would maintain that the main strength of Situation Ethics is its emphasis on agape.
Many Christians would claim that God is love and that given Jesus identified the greatest
commandments as being ‘love God and love others as yourself’ it is only right that the central
defining feature of Situation Ethics is and ought to be love. Love is what links us to each other and to
God. Love is positive in nature and it always puts human needs above cold and impersonal laws. On
this basis therefore arguably love is Situation Ethics main strength.
Critics of Situation Ethics would also challenge the claim that just because something is relatively
easy to apply then it ought to be regarded as a main strength. Being easy to apply does not
necessarily make something right or good. For example a policy of genocide is fairly easy to apply if
you have the military might. So too is a taxation system that rewards the rich and powerful but
punishes those on lower incomes. As too is the execution of ‘criminals’ who are guilty of petty
crimes. However arguably in all these cases it would be wrong to act in this manner. The criterion for
justice and righteousness should never be based on whether something is easily applicable or not.
It is therefore apparent I believe that whilst something that is easy to apply may be appealing, and
considered a main strength this to me is somewhat inadequate. The main strength of an ethical
theory ought not to be how easy it is to apply but whether or not it enables people to make morally
correct decisions. Justice and righteousness are usually extremely difficult to apply because ‘what is
right is not always popular ‘(Romans 12:2). To do what is right often takes great courage, discipline
and sacrifice therefore I am compelled to conclude that Situation Ethics has arguably other features
that perhaps could and should be considered its main strength.