Christian EthicsNML and Situation Ethics
ARISTOTLE
• ARISTOTLE said that ‘there is nothing in the mind
except what was first in the senses.’
• Aristotle was an early EMPIRICIST.
• An empiricist believes that we acquire all
knowledge of the world through what the senses
tell us. What we experience in this world is the
real thing, not some pale reflection. Aristotle
believed in the importance of human reason, but
not as a sole means to knowledge devoid from our
experience of the world. He didn’t see the point of
trying to understand something remote from our
immediate experience.
Why does it rain?
There are several causes that
lead to the rain falling from
the sky BUT
Aristotle felt that the FINAL
CAUSE is that it rains
BECAUSE plants and
animals need rainwater in
order to grow.
Aristotle assigns the raindrops
a ‘life-task’ or ‘purpose’.
This is what he means by
the ‘final cause’.
HOW CAN WE LIVE A GOOD LIFE ?
• In his ethics Aristotle was
obviously concerned with the
question of how to achieve the
‘good life’.
• How should we live? What does it
require to live a good life?
Man can only achieve happiness by using
all his abilities and capabilities; by
achieving his potential.
The ‘life-task’ or ‘final purpose’ of rain
is to water plants so that they can
grow!!!
So, what is the life-task or purpose of
a human being?
THOMAS AQUINAS CAME UP WITH AN ANSWER:
THE FINAL PURPOSE OF A HUMAN BEING IS TO
TO LIVE
TO LEARN
TO REPRODUCE
TO ORDER SOCIETY
TO WORSHIP GOD
To commit euthanasia/abortion is to break the principle to live
To be happy with ignorance breaks the law to learn
To practice contraception or homosexuality is to break the rule to
reproduce
To disregard the laws of the community is to be anarchic and bring
disorder to society
To not search for God, to reject or to not use our reason to work out our
God given human purpose is to break the last of the 5 primary
principles
NATURAL LAW is the belief that natural laws are part of
the STRUCTURE OF OUR WORLD and that we need to use
our REASON to discover them and follow them.
In that sense anyone can follow them even if they are not
religious
CATHOLIC NATURAL MORAL LAW
EVIL is falling short of what it is to be human by ignoring
natural laws, by choosing acts which PREVENT the
actualisation of human potential
It is a LEGALISTIC approach; once you know the rules them
whatever the CONSEWQUENCES OR OUTCOME
GOOD AND EVIL
• Good is fulfilling your
potential
Evil is falling short of your
potential
NML-A SUMMARY
There are natural laws
They can be discovered using reason
We can then follow the laws
Good is fulfilling one’s potential
Evil is falling short of what we are capable of
 Catholic Natural Moral Law
It is the action we choose that is good or bad
Consequences do not dictate what is right
Either it is right or it is wrong
It is not flexible or relative
It establishes absolute standards
SITUATION ETHICS
• JOSEPH FLETCHER-1960’S
• REJECTION OF LEGALISM
• AGAPEIC LOVE SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY RULE
• RULES SHOULD NOT COME BEFORE THE TYPE OF
LOVE AND COMPASSION WHICH JESUS SHOWED
IN THE GOSPELS
THE FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES
• PRAGMATISM
• RELATIVISM
• POSITIVISM
• PERSONALISM
PRAGMATISM
 'The good is what works!' (p.42)
 Situation Ethics is the 'right way', as far as Fletcher is
concerned, because it works! It is not good because of
obedience to a rule. It is good because it brings about good
(positive) results. The good is what works!
 '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?' (p.42)
 Those who have criticised Situation Ethics for being
relativistic do so because they believe the ethical 'good'
requires some Ultimate standard in order to secure a fixed
boundary around what is right or wrong behaviour.
RELATIVISM
 The principle of love is applied
relative to each situation so
that an appropriate response is
made. 'Our obligation is
relative to the situation; but
obligation in the situation is
absolute' (p.27)).
 'The Situationist avoids words
like never and perfect and
always and complete as [they]
avoid the plague, [as they]
avoid absolutely.' (p.44)
 'In Christian Situationism the
ultimate criterion is, as we
shall be seeing, 'agapeic love'.
It relativises the absolute, it
does not absolutise the
relative.' (p.45)
POSITIVISM
 The decision to follow a Situationist-based ethic is due to
the fact that it works ('We cannot verify moral choices.
They may be vindicated but not validated.' (p.49)). Beginning
with the principle of love one makes a decision about the
basis upon which one will live which will be vindicated because
it is believed to work (consequentialism). However, this means
we need to make an initial ethical 'leap-of-faith' to act in a
certain way and to trust that this is the best way. Although
Situation Ethics requires us to use our minds to work out
what the best course of action is it is not a reasoned
position. We do not arrive at 'truth' by some abstract
logical method of working out what we should do (E.g.
Natural Law). Rather, 'truth' is seen during and after the
event, not before.
 'We love because God first loved us’.The decision to act in a
loving way is a choice we make beforehand based on the
notion that other ways do not work. It is not made because
we have proved Situationism 'works' prior to the event.
PERSONALISM
 'It is not the unbelieving who invite 'damnation' but the
unloving' (p.52)
 One of the things Legalism fails to take account of is that
people are persons. When facing a moral dilemma the
Legalist says, 'What does the law say?' whereas the
Situationist says, 'Who is to be helped?'. The value which
Legalists attach to their moral codes (they are always true)
is only there for the Situationist insofar as the decisions
they make work for the sake of people (they are true this
time).
 Another thing Fletcher believes Legalism fails to appreciate
is that people exist in a social context and that any decision
must be beneficial to the wider community rather than just
the individual. One must also recognise that people are
complex beings because they live in relation to other persons.
The attempt to pre-package and pre-define ethics, for
example in the case of abortion, fails to recognise this:
Legalism fails to recognise the complexity of ethical
decisions.
It is not the unbelieving who invite damnation but the unloving
According to Fletcher legalism does not take into account the
impact of decisions on the wider community
'The Situation Ethic, unlike some other
kinds, is an ethic of decision
- of making decisions rather than
'looking them up' in a manual of
prefab rules.' (p.52)
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES





It considers the situation and
consequences e.g. a pregnancy as
a result of rape. NML is
inflexible.
It’s only absolute principle is
Agapeic love. Jesus did not judge
prostitutes or outcasts. He broke
the Sabbath rules and put people
first.
It considers the whole situation
and whilst respecting the laws is
prepared to set them aside if
agapeic love requires. Stealing is
okay to save a family from
starving.
Fletcher provides guidance and
criteria with the 4 working
principles and 6 fundamental
principles
It was described by Bishop
Robinson as an ‘ethic for man
coming of age’ which means we can
be trusted to assess dilemmas and
come to our decisions using Agape
rather than following rules blindly.





Gives priority to consequences, but
a 16 year old pregnant girl could
turn out to be a better mother
than expected?
How do we establish motives?
Could someone act selfishly despite
their outward intention being
agapeic love?
Do actions such as stealing or
murder have no intrinsic moral
value? I may steal a gun to kill a
mass murderer. Stealing a gun in
this situation may be morally good,
but that does not make stealing
generally morally right?
A rejection of moral principles
means that moral judgements are
subjective and down to personal
whim.
Is Proportionalism a compromise
between NML and Situationism?
Are we all capable of making
decisions without clear guidance?