Notes on Situation Ethics
Relating to the ‘Five Strand’ Approach to Religious and Values education
1
THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR ETHICS
- SITUATION ETHICS
Situation Ethics grew out of a Christian moral background which was dominated by Natural Law teaching
and, in particular, the view that certain actions were absolutely and always wrong. Bishop John Robinson in
'Honest to God' said that:
"There is no one ethical system that can claim to be Christian." (Christian Morals Today. p. 18)
Bultmann claimed that Jesus had no ethic - by this he meant that Jesus did not put forward any form of
ethical theory. Situation Ethics can be summed up in two quotations:
"There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'.
How to do this is another question, but this is the whole of moral duty." (William Temple)
"The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law; it is absolute because it concerns
everything concrete... The absolutism of love is its power to go into concrete situations..." Paul Tillich)
Joseph Fletcher, an Anglican theologian, pioneered the development of Situation Ethics and his book by that
name was the classic treatment and was published in 1966 (by SCM Press). However he did not pioneer the
basic ideas of Situation Ethics which had a longer history. These notes draw heavily on Fletcher's book.
At the beginning of his book, Fletcher tells the following story: A friend of his arrived at St. Louis in the
U.S.A. just as a presidential campaign was ending. The cab driver who drove him was clearly involved in
the battle and said: "I am my father and grandfather before him, and their fathers, have always been
straight-ticket Republicans." "Ah", said Fletcher's friend, "I take it that you will vote Republican as well?".
"No" said the driver, "There are times when a an has to push his principles aside and do the right thing."
THIS CABBIE, FLETCHER CLAIMS, IS THE HERO OF HIS BOOK.
Fletcher claims that there are only three possible approaches to ethics:
1. The legalistic - i.e. ethics based on unalterable laws,
2. The anti-nomian - the lawless or unprincipled approach, and
3. The situational approach.
According to Catholic moral theology, abortion is immoral and can never be permitted. HOWEVER the
principle of double effect means that a surgical procedure may be acceptable even if the indirect result is
the death of the foetus. For instance, if a pregnant woman has cancer of the uterus and where the cancer is
spreading then it is permissible for a surgeon to remove the uterus even if, as a by-product, the foetus has
to die. In this case abortion is NOT the primary intention, but as it is an inevitable by-product of the primary
objective it is permissible.
However this principle becomes more problematic when different situations develop. Take a pregnancy in
the fallopian tube. If this pregnancy occurs the woman will die, so Catholic moral theology allows the
removal of the fallopian tube even if the by product is the death of the foetus. However what if the doctor
can remove the foetus without damaging the fallopian tube? This is attractive as it does not damage the
child-bearing ability of the mother. However the doctor CANNOT remove the foetus as this then becomes
the primary objective so, morally, the doctor would have no choice but to take the most severe surgical
choice - remove the whole tube. It is at points such as this that the basic natural law approach begins to
seem questionable.
The problem with this principle if it is applied in a straight-forward sense is that almost any evil effect can
be allowed provided the main purpose of an action is held to be good. On the basis of the principle, it might
be argued to be acceptable to kill a hundred thousand Iraqi women and children in order to avoid the
deaths of one hundred Americans. Who is to decide what the good is that will justify the 'indirect' evil?'
A central issue is whether God has shared with human beings his dominion over the natural order - can
human beings participate in the moral decision making process? Christian theology has traditionally held
that God laid down natural law and the issue arises as to whether human beings have the right to make
contrary decisions, perhaps as an exception to the general rule, in order to contribute to the greater good.
In other words, if God lays down natural law and requires human beings to be obedient to these laws, does
God give human brings the right to go against these natural laws for what they consider to be good
reasons?
Notes on Situation Ethics
Relating to the ‘Five Strand’ Approach to Religious and Values education
2
If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then this seems to leave moral decision making firmly in
the Situation Ethics camp with the natural law approach undermined. It appears that everything is now
relative and dependent on the circumstances that the individual has to face. On this basis, it is the
CONSEQUENCES of an action which will determine which action is right or wrong - but the problem is that
there are so many consequences and it is so difficult to assess all the variables. This comes very close to
the Situation Ethics approach which denies any absolutes
THE FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES
Situation Ethics rests on six fundamental propositions and four working principles. The working principles
are as follows:
i) Pragmatism
To be right, it is necessary that a proposed course of action should work. This seems reasonable, but, of
course, it immediately forces us onto the next question - to what end must it work? Before any moral
system is decided on, we have to decide on the final end that is sought - this is a pre-moral question.
Fletcher claims that the norm or end by which the success or failure of any thought or action is to be
judged is LOVE.
ii) Relativism
Advocates of Situation Ethics reject the use of words like 'never', 'always' and 'absolute' as they believes
that circumstances can always throw up exceptions. Relativism does NOT, however, imply that anything
goes - to be relative, one has to be relative to something and situation ethics maintains that it should be
relative to love. As Fletcher puts it, it:
'relativises the absolute, it does not absolutise then relative! '.
Human beings are ALWAYS commanded to act lovingly, but how this is to be applied will depend on the
situation. The Divine Command is always the same as to the WHAT, but contingent as to the HOW a
particular action is to be performed. Paul Tillich said that:
"Every moral law is abstract in relation to the unique and totally concrete situation."
Jesus attacked the Pharisee's principle of statutory morality - Christians cannot and should not lay down
any law. When they do, they become once more like the Pharisees.
iii) Positivism
There are, Fletcher claims, only two ways of understanding religious knowledge or belief:
1. Theological Naturalism - in which REASON leads to faith or the propositions of faith from human
experience. Natural Theology is the paradigm example of this.
2. Theological Positivism - in which faith propositions are posited and affirmed voluntarily. Reasoning
takes place within faith rather than as a basis for faith.
The basis for morality cannot be proved, any moral judgement rests on a decision. The Christian cannot
prove that love is the highest good. Value choices have to be made - moral choices cannot be proved. In
Christian thought, the supremacy of Christian love is established by the decision to say 'Yes' to the faith
claim that 'God is love'. Faith comes first. Situation Ethics, then, depends on the supremacy given to love.
iv) Personalism
Ethics deals with human relations. Situation ethics puts people at the centre. The Legalist asks what the
law says, the situationist asks how people can be helped. The Christian is committed to love people, not
abstract principles or laws. Kant's second maxim holds "Treat people as ends, never as means" - because
God is personal, Love is personal as well - love is of people, by people and for people.
It is not the unbelieving who invite damnation but those who do not love, who do not make themselves into
people who can love. The situationist believes in decision making, in making decisions on behalf of and out
of love for persons in the particular situations they face. This necessarily results in action on behalf of
persons.
CONSCIENCE
Situation ethics rejects four of the normal ways of thinking about conscience. Conscience is NOT:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Intuition,
Guidance by the Holy Spirit or a guardian angel
The internalised value system of a society, nor
Reason making moral judgements (the view of St. Thomas Aquinas)
Notes on Situation Ethics
Relating to the ‘Five Strand’ Approach to Religious and Values education
3
There is, for Fletcher, no such thing as conscience. Conscience is merely the word we use for our attempts
to make decisions creatively, fittingly according to the particular situation. Fletcher considers that Aquinas'
definition of conscience comes closest to the truth 'reason making moral judgements' - but it is in no sense
a separate faculty.
THE SIX FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF SITUATION ETHICS
1]
Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all. Nothing is good in and of
itself. Actions gain their value only because they help human beings (in which case they are good)
or hurt people (in which case they are bad). What is right in once case may be wrong for another for instance lending money to a father whose children are hungry may be wrong if the father is
known to be an alcoholic. No act is 'right in itself' - it all depends on the circumstances in which
the act is done. Love determines what actions are to be called good and which are to be called bad.
Love is the one and only regulative principle of Christian ethics.
Augustine says that:
“…in order to know whether a man is a good man, " one does not ask what he believes or what he
hopes, but what he loves. " (Quoted in 'Situation Ethics. p. 63)
Classical moralists hold that suicide and lying are ALWAYS wrong regardless of circumstance, even
though loving concern may be the motive. Faced with the problem that this law may condemn
something done out of love, a bewildering range of theories has been produced to make sense of
the position - this can be avoided by denying there is anything which is intrinsically wrong in itself.
2]
The ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else. Jesus and St. Paul replaced the Torah,
the strict Jewish Law, with the principle of love. They redeemed law from the letter that kills and
brought it back to the spirit of love which is life-giving. Even the Ten commandments are not
absolute - Bonhoeffer in his 'Ethics' considered the command against killing to be absolute and he
uses this to reject Euthanasia. Sometimes, however, one may have to give up one's life for
someone else - Mother Maria did this in Auschwitz in order to save the life of a young girl. The
situationists would say that this was the right thing to do. Bonhoeffer himself was executed for
trying to kill, to murder Adolf Hitler - he, as a dedicated Christian, was prepared to go this far to
meet the needs of the situation he faced.
Christian love is not desire - it is AGAPE, giving love. Agape is not reciprocal, it does not depend on
being loved in return. Erotic love is emotional, Christian love is not. The command of love calls us to
a high level of responsibility. Natural Law moralists are tied to a legalism which denies love's
demands, but Natural Law has the advantage that people can be told what to do - it brings us
backto the Christianity of the Grand Inquisitor (in Dostoyevsky's 'The Brother's Karamazov' - see
the discussion on this in 'The Puzzle of Evil' Harper Collins 1992 by Peter Vardy). The Inquisitor
says that Christ must not come back again with his offer of freedom and individual responsibility the Church has now subdued people under a new set of rules and will not allow Jesus to free them
again. Situation ethics aims to widen freedom and responsibility because it believes human beings
can cope with this.
Albert Schweitzer was, Fletcher claimed, right to say that 'the good conscience was an invention of
the Devil' - this is because people think they can have a good conscience just be refraining from
doing things, whereas love makes it a positive duty to go out to people in need.
3]
Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else. Justice is love at work in
the community in which we live. Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating its duties,
obligations and resources. Love does not permit us to solve our problems or the problems of our
group at the expense of others.
4]
Love wills the neighbour's good, whether we like him or not. Kierkegaard talked of the need for
Christian love to be non-preferential- in other words love cannot be selective or have favourites.
Christian love is a matter of attitude not feeling - Christian love is not erotic. Christian AGAPE, real
Christian love, desires the good of the other, not one's own good. Bultmann said:
"In reality, the love which is based on emotions of sympathy, or affection, is self-love; for it is a
love of preference, of choice, and the standard of preference or choice is the self." ('Jesus and the
Word. p. 117)
There is nothing sentimental about Christian love - it is above all PRACTICAL. Jesus makes clear
that our neighbour is anybody when he says "Love your enemies... for if you love those who love
you, what reward have you?" - Christians even have to love their enemies.
Notes on Situation Ethics
Relating to the ‘Five Strand’ Approach to Religious and Values education
4
There are three approaches, Fletcher maintains, to ethics:

AN EGOTISTIC ETHIC says 'My first and last consideration is myself';
5]

A MUTUALISTIC ETHIC says 'I will give as long as I receive'. This is the common dynamic of
friendships.

AN AGAPEISTIC LOVE says 'I will give, requiring nothing in return'.
Only the end justifies the means, nothing else. It is said that Lenin, once tired of being told by
Tolstoyian idealists that he should never use force in foreign or domestic wars since it was always
wrong, said:
"If the end does not justify the means, then in the name of sanity and justice what does?"
He never got an answer to the question. However the means used must be FITTING to the end.
LOVE CAN AND DOES JUSTIFY ANYTHING.
6]
Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. The Grand Inquisitor wanted to do away
with freedom and to impose law because he recognised that people cannot cope with freedom –
freedom is too heavy a price to pay as people who are genuinely free cannot be controlled. Yet he
also recognised that freedom was what Jesus came to bring.
Moral laws are continuously supported in theory and ignored in practice - this is not because people are
fundamentally evil but because the laws fail to take account of the situation. When you hear someone say
"She has loose morals", this always means that her sex life is rather looser than many people think – or,
rather, say - is desirable. Churches are strong n this approach, which is odd as, as Fletcher says:
"Jesus said nothing about birth control, large or small families, childlessness, homosexaulity, masturbation,
fornication, pre-marital intercourse, sterilisation, artificial insemination, abortion, sex fore-play, petting and
courtship. Whether any form of sex (hetero, home or auto) is good or evil depends on whether love is fully
served." (Situation Ethics. p. 139)
Some theologians claim that people do not want to grapple with moral ambiguities, instead they want
certainties. Situationists would say:
"Of course, they want the certainties of Dostoyevski’s Grand Inquisitor - they cannot handle Jesus' gift of
freedom".
Fletcher claims that is a mistake to generalise. You can't say 'Is it ever right to lie to your
family?' The answer must be "I don't know, give me an example." A concrete situation is
needed, not a generalisation. "IT ALL DEPENDS" may well be the watchword of the situationist.
Is a girl right to have sex with a man for money? The situationist will say "It all depends". If the money is
to be used to buy a new dress the situation is different from if the money is to be used to stop the woman's
family from dying of starvation. If you could go to bed with someone and if, in so doing, you could save the
life of everyone in your family or in your village of street, would you agree?
Christian love is a RESPONSIBLE LOVE - yet responsibility can be frightening. It is a love for adults, not
children. Christ has to be born in people's hearts if they are to be Christians. They have to bring to birth a
love of God and a responsive love for others (the mystic Mynster Eckhart talke of 'The Birth of the Son in
the soul'). This is the only test for a morality that is to be called Christian.
Situation ethics was condemned by Pope Pius Xll in 1952 (14 years before Fletcher's book was written) as '
An individualistic and subjective appeal to the concrete circumstances of actions to justify decisions in
opposition to the Natural Law or God's revealed will' . Situation ethics is very individualistic and it is far
from easy in some situations to decide what 'love' requires. If there are NO rules this can make murder of
an unwanted granny 'loving' in the relative's eyes. Specific criticisms of this position include:
1. It is not easy to determined the consequences of actions and this the situationist needs to do. As an
example, it may seem 'loving' to a parent to advocate that a daughter who has 'carelessly' got
pregnant that she should have an abortion without being able to judge whether the long term
heartache this might cause makes it the 'right' or 'loving' course in the long run.
2. Humans tend to look at situations from their own points of view and there is a real danger of
selfishness creeping in under the banner of 'love',
3. Actions are not necessarily as dissimilar as Fletcher seems to suggest.
Notes on Situation Ethics
Relating to the ‘Five Strand’ Approach to Religious and Values education
5
4. Situation ethics can lead to us crossing boundary lines that are dangerous to cross - for instance
once one accepts that euthanasia can be justified in certain circumstances, one may have opened
Pandora's box.
5. Situation ethics also tends to conflate two positions which need to be kept distinct - i.e. that which
is MORALLY GOOD may not be what is MORALLY RIGHT. The moral goodness of an action may
depend on its motive or intention - a person may be considered to have done an act which is
morally good because he or she did it in good conscience and taking account of all the known
circumstances and yet, objectively, the may have been a wrong action. Situation ethics refuses to
make this distinction and instead considers that what is morally good is also what is morally right this has obvious dangers.
However situation ethics can provide a corrective to taking the natural law approach too literally. Perhaps
what is needed is a middle way - this some Catholic theologians are seeking under the heading of
PROPORTIONALISM (cf see separate notes) . This holds that there are certain moral rules and it can never
be right to go against these unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it. The proportionate
reason would be grounded in the particular situation, but the situation must generate a reason which is
sufficiently strong to overturn what would otherwise be a firm rule. On this basis, moral laws derived from
the natural law or similar approach may be firm guidelines which should never be ignored unless it is
absolutely clear that, in the particular situation, this is justified by a proportionate reason.
Dr. Peter Vardy
Vice-Principal
Heythrop College
University of London