Situation Ethics (Part 5): The Third Proposition - Love is the Only Norm (continued)

Click here to read part 1 of this article

"In its very marrow Christian ethics is a situation ethic. The new morality, the emerging contemporary Christian conscience, separates Christian conduct from rigid creeds and rigid codes." (Joseph Fletcher)

Love Has No Equals

There is a natural fear in letting go of rules and laws. For one, legalism has been the dominant worldview in most societies, and so we have become accustomed to this way of thinking about morality. But there is another fear; that if we drop the legalist approach in Christianity, then people will no longer have any reason to be committed to the faith. If humans are able to do it for themselves, what need do they have of God?

Fletcher seems unconcerned by this. For him the central and only important matter at hand, is making ethical legalism subordinate to love. In his eyes, the “man of law” fears change simply because he has known nothing else, and that is all.*

A common criticism of Fletcher’s Situation Ethics is that he does not define clearly what he means by love. In discussing the second proposition, Fletcher comes closest to defining it as agape (non-reciprocal, neighbour-regarding) love, as opposed to philia (friendship) or eros (romantic).

"Erotic and philic love are emotional, but the effective principle of Christian love is will, disposition; it is an attitude, not feeling." (Joseph Fletcher)

"What a difference it makes when love, understood agapeically, is boss; when love is the only norm. How free and therefore responsible we are!" (Joseph Fletcher)

Objections

In the final section of this chapter, Fletcher addresses some objections to his Situation Ethics:

1. Humanity after the Fall

There are Christians who believe in a literal Fall of humanity from an original state of perfection as outlined in the first chapters of Genesis in the Bible. They believe that as a result of humans choosing to disobey God, that our moral compass has become corrupted and incapable of making choices that align with the Will of God. For them, this explains why we need God to give us laws and Commandments to live by.

Fletcher’s approach is to emphasize another aspect of Christian belief, this being the positive effect of Christ dying for our sins:

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.“ (Galatians 5:1)

Following the Apostle Paul Fletcher shifts the focus from Law to that of Grace (this being the good things that occur in one’s life as a result of being saved by Christ).

Something to think about: Do you see any problems for Fletcher’s Situation Ethics in terms of non-Christian faiths, atheists etc.?

“The Christian is called to be mature, to live by grace and freedom, to respond to life, to be responsible." (Joseph Fletcher)

2. The centrality of freedom

In light of the Fall, some Christians believe we cannot now be trusted to make free choices. According to them were are innately disposed to act selfishly and contrary to God’s Will. In fact, they would say it was our freedom which led to us to disobey God in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 3:1-24).

For the ethical legalistic the Law is all about directing and controlling people, and as such this sets limits on what we can and should do. The legalist also believes this is for our own good. For Fletcher the law inhibits our personal obligation and responsibility. Situation Ethics on the other hand maximizes personal obligation and responsibility.

Something to think about: Which do you prefer, clearly set out guidelines for how to behave, or the ability to choose to act as you see fit? Why do you prefer this?

Law may be indeed a necessary feature of community and can even be constructive. But when the motive of the law observer is to hide behind the letter of the law in order to escape the higher demands of its spirit or to escape the complexities of responsible decision, that is cheap legalism. (Joseph Fletcher)

"Decision is "a risk rooted in the courage of being" free." (Joseph Fletcher)

3. Predicting the future

A criticism Fletcher notes as being somewhat valid, is that situation ethics requires a greater degree of knowledge about a situation than legalism does. One appears to need to already know that following the Law on a particular matter will not reap the best consequences. But do we have access to such knowledge, or can we? We are in a sense making decisions based simply on assumption. In response, Fletcher counters that we are well within our remit to call upon experts to guide us, and even the Law may be a useful tool in this respect. But of course, if anything undermines our personal freedom to act in a loving manner, then it needs to be set aside for the sake of love.

In the end Fletcher directs the readers to reflect on the example of Jesus, who he says was willing to set aside the Law for the sake of the "radical decisions of love".

"If law cuts down our range of free initiative and personal responsibility, by doing our thinking for us, we are so much the less for it as persons. Situation ethics aims to widen freedom, which is the other face of responsibility." (Joseph Fletcher)

Review

The Third Proposition - Love and Justice are the same

Notes

*Keep in mind that Fletcher rejects ethical legalism because (for him) it simply does not work. Despite having established universal principles for people to live by, legalists often compromise what their law demands of them (E.g. Telling “white lies”, when lying is supposed to be wrong). Fletcher's point is that a claim to possess indubitable moral precepts requires one to live in full obedience to them, not water them down or compromise them.

Situation Ethics (Part 5): The Second Proposition - Love is the Only Norm (Part 1)

The Second Proposition: “The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else." (Joseph Fletcher)

Love Replaces Law

Jesus was once asked which of the commandments was the most important. His response surprised the people gathered around him:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:37-40)

There are 613 commandments in the Torah (aka Pentateuch = First five books of the Old Testament in the Bible). The most well-known set of commandments in the Torah are the Decalogue; more commonly known as “The Ten Commandments” (Exodus 20:1- 17). As a Christian Situationist, Fletcher has to address the matter of these extensive religious and moral laws. Taken literally the question begs: Do we serve the interests of love by living according each of these commandments, or do we serve the interests of love when we put them to one side? Fletcher’s argument favours the latter response because there were times when both Jesus and the Apostle Paul were prepared to put aside the law, in order to serve the greater interests of love (see Mark 2:27-28 and 1 Corinthians 10: 23-26).

Tablets of Stone

"There can be, and often is, a conflict between love and law." (Joseph Fletcher)

If love is not served by a literal following of the Ten Commandments, then how is the Situationist to respond to their demands? Fletcher offers the following ‘revisions’:

1. “You shall have no other gods before me” - More of a tautology than a command. If you worship Yahweh then you will (naturally) not have faith in any other gods. A fact of faith, rather than a prohibition.
2. You shall not make for yourself an image…” - Is this to be taken literally? What about the icons used in Catholic and Eastern Christianity and the many varieties of religious art which have inspired, enhanced worship and drawn devotees closer to the Divine? Are these ALL wrong?
3. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord” - Are we to take no oaths? What about when priests and married couples make promises in God’s name? Maybe this command is more to do with prohibiting the use of God’s name for magical purposes or for false oaths (unless love’s interests are better served by doing so).
4. “Remember the Sabbath” - Is the “Sabbath” here referring to Saturday (Judaism) or Sunday (Christianity)? Is it even possible for this law to be kept? Are nurses, surgeons, doctors, and even the police to stop working too?

"The last six of the commandments… are more “ethical” in the ordinary non-theological sense of the word [and all] but the fifth (Honour your father and mother) are universal negatives. But situation ethics has good reason to hold it as a duty in some situations to break them, any or all of them." (Joseph Fletcher [brackets mine])

Even the prohibition “Do not kill” is regularly compromised by Christians when they eat meat, argue in favour of self-defence, support Just War, advocate capital punishment and support mercy-killings (Euthanasia). We should note that even after this prohibition was given Jews continued to offer blood sacrifices in the Temple, and even Christians argue that the death of Christ was something demanded by God as a means to forgive sin (“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood” - Romans 3:25). If we are commanded not to kill, how do we explain these things?

So it seems that due to the problems and inconsistencies in trying to literally keep the all of the commandments, Fletcher advocates we accept only one Law, this being the law of love:

"There is nothing outside a situation which by going into it can prejudge it." (Joseph Fletcher)

Neither Nature Nor Scripture

"Legalism is legalism whether it rests upon nature or upon Scripture. Both kinds are quicksand." (Joseph Fletcher)

Christian ethics has historically been grounded in either Scripture or natural law. In terms of the latter, the idea here is that through a careful study of nature we can deduce a Divinely established order of things, and from this understand how we should act.*

Fletcher argues that whilst we may deduce a natural order of things from nature, this is not to say we can know how to act on the basis of this**. To suggest otherwise is to commit the Naturalist Fallacy (Is-Ought). If anything nature reveals quite opposite from that of moral certainties, for when we consider the history of humanity throughout the ages we see that there have been no universal laws held by all persons, all the time. Instead we find certain platitudes have been held, such as “Do good to all”, but no specific agreement on what “The Good” is, or how we should specifically act. Even Scripture invites a variety of responses and interpretations to the different commandments in it, and as such this undermines the notion that we should take them literally and treat them as universals to live by.

The Second Proposition - Love is the Only Norm (Continued)

Review

Notes

*The classic example of Christian ethics and natural law is the Catholic teaching on contraception and abortion. Without the use of any contraception, sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy. Thus, the argument goes, God’s natural order of things is that sexual intercourse is primarily intended for procreation, and as such anything which hinders this (or prevents it from ending in the birth of a baby) is contrary to the Will of God and morally wrong.

**Fletcher cites the example of a Federal Judge in the US, who used natural law to argue in favour of racial segregation on a golf course. He suggested that segregation was justified, because in nature we observe that no birds of a different kind will rest together on the same branch of a tree.

The Freewill Defense (St. Augustine of Hippo): Part 2

Click here to read part 1 of this article

Natural Evil and the Principle of Plenitude

Freewill can explain the presence of moral evil in the world (this being brought about by human mis-choices), but what about the seemingly vast amount of natural evil* present in the world (e.g. earthquakes, tornadoes, disease etc.)? 

Following a literal reading of Genesis 3, natural evil can be considered something which occurred due to the sin of Adam:

"To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.' " (Genesis 3:17f)

However, for Augustine the presence of natural evil in the world was explained by something called the PRINCIPLE OF PLENITUDE.

The principle of plenitude begins by showing how the universe exhibits great diversity. For instance, we look around us and see tremendous differences in the quality and character of all things. Yet the question begs (for Augustine) as to why there is such diversity, and why there seems to be so much inequality and unfairness? For instance, some creatures live short and harsh lives while others live long and pleasant lives. Furthermore, why were humans created with the capacity to sin (and thus break their relationship with God and bring about moral corruption)? Why weren’t they created perfect instead? As the theologian John Hick suggests, 'why... is there a world rather than only the highest of heavens'? Why didn’t God simply create a heaven on earth?

Taking his lead from Plato's Timaeus, Augustine argues that all creatures were brought into existence so that 'the whole range of Eternal Ideas should become incarnated in the world of sense' (Hick). In other words, the heavens and the earth are perfect because they contain such a diverse ranges of things in them, and without this the fullness of God's creativity would not be expressed.

Is this as good as it gets?

Logically what follows from this is that from the human point-of-view, a diverse world/universe is there simply for our enjoyment and benefit (anthropocentrism). Of course, many modern day ecologists are generally unhappy to place humans at the top of the creative 'tree', especially at the expense of recognising the intrinsic value in both the environment and non-humans species. Most people are also unwilling to see the world as simply the 'servant' (and server) of humanity. So the idea that there are many diverse species (and things) in the world to make the world more interesting for those who can appreciate it, does not seem to fit into the modern view of things.

A further problem is that if a diverse world is an expression of Divine creativity in all its fullness, only limited by what God could logically do or has conceived of doing, then if this world is 'perfect', then 'we have no recourse left but to despair' (Leibniz), for we can imagine a significantly better world than this. For instance, we can imagine a world where there is no evil and suffering (or even significantly less than what there is). Of course, if we can imagine a better world than this one then either this world is not perfect or God has limited ability (or vision) in what counts as perfection compared to us.

The Sovereignty of God

In response to charges such as these, Augustine would argue that although the world looks imperfect to us, this is because we are seeing things from a limited (or distorted) perspective. From the standpoint of God, all things are good. Even the apparent evil in the world contributes to making everything perfect. In other words, all degrees of good and evil have a place in the Divine Will and order of things. This means evil and suffering are not 'wasteful' by-products of the world and the universe, but things God uses to bring about a greater good.

So any concern we have with evil and suffering is merely relative to our own viewpoint ('the universe with its sinister aspect is perfect' (Hick p.84)). If we could only see things as God does, we would be less concerned about the child dealing with cancer, or the baby born with AIDS. If evil and suffering were out of God's control, then God's sovereignty would be questioned. Events would have transpired such than an all-powerful Deity, were not in control of things.

For Augustine, the idea that God is not in control of everything is anathema. His theodicy is designed to protect not only God's sovereignty, but also God's perfect goodness. If the world were out of control, then God could not really be said to be all-good (benevolent). Also, as far as the natural order is concerned, death and destruction are a necessary part of things. Without them, there would be no way new life could emerge.

"Some perish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are transformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory. Of this order the beauty does not strike us because by our mortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offend us are harmonised with the most accurate fitness and beauty." (Augustine)

A perfect world?

So with all this in mind we might be tempted to think that the world and the universe are perfect? For if all things find their place in God's grand scheme of things (including evil and suffering), then surely we no longer need to be concerned about the so-called ‘problem’ of evil, for evil is simply another facet of goodness? Augustine's response to this would be to say no; real evil really does exist! There are things in this world, and things people do, which God definitely desires not to happen. However, evil does not (and cannot be allowed to) upset the moral order of things. Moral evil, for instance, does not upset the moral order of creation, for sin will always be punished by God. However we should heed Hick’s warning here, that:

"A universe in which sin exists but is precisely cancelled out by retribution is no less good than a universe in which there is neither sin nor punishment." (John Hick)

This still leaves the question-begging, that if 'evil' is ultimately something 'good' then why does God punish sinners?

Although sin is a blemish on God's creation, God allows sin (and sinners) to remain in the world for the time being. Of course, this raises the question that if God has preordained sin to be a part of the world (and human experience), then surely God is responsible for the presence of sin and moral evil in the world? Taken a stage further we might also venture to suggest that God’s Sovereignty leads Augustine to surmise that based on the the evidence God has chosen (or predestined) only some of humanity to be saved (i.e. become Christians), with the vast majority of humankind dammed? So although Augustine denies that sin has an independent existence apart from God and is merely the privation of the good, it seems that if not people will enter heaven then evil does have an independent existence apart from God after all.

Some further issues

Augustine's theodicy has been largely adopted by the Western Church and has become the go-to theodicy with regard to addressing the problem of evil and suffering. The key idea is that God is in control of everything, but not the free choices of free agents (such as humans and angels). However, what does it mean to say we are created with free will? For instance, in critiquing Augustine, John Hick argues whether the angels are truly capable of sinning ('If the angels are finitely perfect, then even though they are in some sense free to sin they never will, in fact, do so' (Hick))? If a perfect being sins then surely, as Hick argues, they were not perfect in the first place, and God is to be held accountable as their Maker?

Of course, Augustine held that God created the angels (and humanity) in the full knowledge that some would fall (sin), even though it was never God's desire for them to do so. So although God is our Creator, and although God knew that some of God's created beings would sin, God is once again absolved from blame (as far as Augustine is concerned), because God did not force any of them to make these (free) choices.

But once again we return to the matter of whether God is responsible for the presence of evil and suffering in the world. For if God created beings God knew would sin, yet chose some of them to remain good without transgressing their free will (such as the angels), then why not keep all of them from sinning? And if God is able to save some of humanity (without transgressing their free will), why not save all of humanity?

Finally, we are led to ask if God is able to prevent evil and suffering from occurring in the world or not? Augustine tends towards a rather impotent view of God, one who sits back and takes credit for all things that happen in the world as these are an expression of the Divine Will, but one who also appears morally dubious when we consider the horrendous acts of evil and suffering that have taken place.

"While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony... I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket." (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)

Notes

* Natural evil is associated with things such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and other similar types of events, which are although not directly caused by humans, may cause them harm and suffering. Natural evil is contrasted with moral evil, which are things humans deliberately do to cause suffering (E.g. murder, rape etc.).

The Problem of Evil and Suffering: Christian Responses

Introduction

In order to explain why there is evil and suffering in the world, Christians usually turn to the first book of the Bible (Genesis) where we read about how Adam and Eve disobeyed God's command not to eat of the fruit of the tree. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was said to be at the centre of the Garden of Eden, and the effects of eating the fruit and disobeying God are said to have had dramatic consequences for the world and everyone in it:

The relationship between humanity and God

• Before the Fall: God walked in the 'cool of the garden' with man and woman and spent time with them (Genesis 3:8).
• After the Fall: Men and women now hide from God. They do not want to be with God (Genesis 3:8). Humans have also been denied the gift of eternal life and cast out from the presence of God (Genesis 3:22-23).

The relationship between men and women

• Before the Fall: Men and women were innocent and felt no shame, even though they were naked (Genesis 2:25).
• After the Fall: Men and women realised they were naked, and sought to cover their bodies with garments made from animal skins (Genesis 3:7). Women will also now experience unbearable pain when giving birth to children, and will become subordinate to men (Genesis 3:16).

The relationship between humanity and nature

• Before the Fall: The world was perfect and 'good' (Genesis 1:31). There was a garden (Eden) where humanity spent time with God, and where there were lots of nice fruit and vegetation (Genesis 2:8-9).
• After the Fall: The ground was cursed, and the man had to work harder in order to grow plants and crops for food. The ground now also produces weeds to hinder this, and make his work more difficult. (Genesis 3:16).

As far as the Bible is concerned humans are responsible for the presence of evil and suffering in the world,

but it should be noted that not all Christians believe the events in Genesis chapter 3 describe things that literally happened.

Is God at all responsible?

Clearly the account of the Fall in Genesis chapter 3 raises interesting questions for Christians to find answers to. For a start, if God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), why did God create humans with the ability to make wrong choices, or create them in the full knowledge that they would do this?

Now there are some who believe that our ability to make free choices is an important part of what makes us human, and that if God had simply made us like robots, programmed to only do good things, then this would make our devotion to God and doing God’s Will somewhat pitiful. Also, if we lived in a world where there was no pain or suffering at all, then we could, in theory, stand under a falling tree and never die if it hit us. Such a world would be a very strange place to live if actions had no painful consequences at all.

Satan vs Job

In Genesis 3 it is said that Satan, in the form of a serpent, tempted humans to disobey God. Most Christians understand Satan to be an angel who was thrown out of heaven for disobeying God. Satan is also said to be the cause of much evil and suffering in the world today. This occurs when people give in to Satan's temptations to disobey God, or when Satan actually causes bad things to happen.

Although Christians believe Satan tempts people to do wrong, they still believe people have a choice whether to give into temptation or not. For instance, Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, but never gave in (Matthew 4:1-11).

One example of Satan causing suffering is found in the story of Job in the Old Testament. In Job chapter 1 and 2 we read how Satan approached God to ask if Job may be tempted to see if he would turn away from God. As a result of God allowing this, Satan inflicts all manner of pain and difficulty on Job. Job loses everything he has, even his health and his family, but through everything he never loses faith in God, and simply accepts that suffering is a part of life. Job's friends attribute his suffering to something he has done wrong, but as we know this is not why Job suffered.

Although God eventually gave back to Job more than he lost, God never really explains why he suffered. This is why some Christians believe that in reality people will never know why they suffer in life and that it is not really their place to know either. When people suffer they should turn to God for help, but not blame God. They should simply trust that there is some higher purpose to all they are going through.

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Christians working to overcome suffering in the world

Jesus said that people should show God's love in the world by working to help those who are in need (Matthew 25:37-40). He also said that in doing these people are working to establish the Kingdom of God here on earth. In the light of Jesus' teaching, many Christians throughout Church history have worked to help those who are suffering in the world:

William Booth and The Salvation Army

The Salvation Army began in 1865 when Methodist minister William Booth and his wife Catherine became concerned that the poor amongst them were not being welcomed into London's churches. William also began to feel that they not only needed to hear about Jesus saving their soul (their spiritual need), but also needed practical help (their physical needs). He believed the 'Church' should go out to the people, rather than people always coming to the church. After a difficult start, by 1900 the 'Army' had spread around the world to 36 countries. 

The aim of The Salvation Army is, "the advancement of the Christian religion… of education, the relief of poverty, and other charitable objects beneficial to society or the community of mankind as a whole" (Salvation Army Act, 1980).

While women weep, as they do now, I'll fight; while children go hungry, as they do now I'll fight; while men go to prison, in and out, in and out, as they do now, I'll fight; while there is a drunkard left, while there is a poor lost girl upon the streets, while there remains one dark soul without the light of God, I'll fight, I'll fight to the very end! (William Booth)

Martin Luther King and The Civil Rights Movement

Martin Luther King Jr. was the son of a Baptist minister, and pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama (USA). During the 1950s in the southern states of the USA, there was much racial division. This came to a head in Alabama in 1955 when Rosa Parks (a black American) refused to give her seat up to white man on a bus (as required by the law in that State at that time). Martin Luther King Jr. was a key person in the formation of the Southern Leadership Christian Conference (SCLC), which organised non-violent protests against racially discriminatory laws. In August 1963 in Washington DC, he delivered his now famous 'I have a dream' speech where he set out his vision that freedom and equality for all people in America would become a reality.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King Jr.)

Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Mother Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje, Macedonia, in 1910. At the age of twelve she felt God calling her to be a missionary. At the age of eighteen she began teaching in a school in Calcutta, India. In 1930 she became a Catholic nun. Due to the immense poverty she saw outsider her school, she gave up teaching in 1948 and devoted herself to working amongst the poor in the slums of Calcutta. In 1950 was given permission by the Roman Catholic Church to start her own order, 'The Missionaries of Charity', whose chief aim was to love and care for people nobody else was prepared to look after. In 1979 she received the Noble Peace Prize in recognition of her work.

I see God in every human being. When I wash the leper's wounds, I feel I am nursing the Lord himself. Is it not a beautiful experience? (Mother Teresa)