Situation Ethics (Part 3): Four Working Principles

"The heart of this explanation of situation ethics lies in its six propositions… But there are a few preliminary matters to be made plain first, in the reader’s interest, so he can know what presuppositions are at work." (Joseph Fletcher)

There are four working principles underpinning Fletcher’s Situation Ethics. These are: 

• Pragmatism
• Relativism
• Positivism
• Personalism

Pragmatism

"The good... like the true, is whatever works." (Joseph Fletcher)

In Fletcher’s own words, Situation Ethics has been ‘consciously inspired by American Pragmatism’. Pragmatists have little interest in theoretical discussions about the nature of ‘Good’, but are very interested in what works (action/activity). Fletcher's interest in Pragmatism came about because of an increasing disillusionment with using ‘doubt’ as a basis for discovering Truth (the classic Western approach).

"Philosophy is utterly useless as a way to bridge the gap between doubt and faith." (Joseph Fletcher)

As a Pragmatist, Fletcher sees little value in theoretical discussions concerning the nature of ‘Truth’, or what the ‘Good’ is, especially if there is no practical or beneficial outcome to such a discussion. In other words, debating the nature of ‘Good’ is only worthwhile if it will make a difference. A debate for the sake of debating is a waste of time.

"Christianly speaking, as we shall see, the norm or measure by which any action is to be judged a success or failure, i.e., right or wrong, is love." (Joseph Fletcher)

Although Situation Ethics is distinctly Christian in flavour, Fletcher does not consider acting in a loving way to be something only Christians should do. All persons should be seeking to act in loving ways, all the time.

Relativism

"As the strategy is pragmatic, the tactics are relativistic." (Joseph Fletcher)

One of the reasons Fletcher rejects ethical legalism, is because it does not take into account the uniqueness of different situations. In attempting to impose some carte blanche rule for all to follow, Fletcher believes Legalism ends up treating people inappropriately. Different situations require different approaches, but the intent should always remain the same; to do the most loving thing.

"The Situationist avoids words like 'never' and 'perfect' and 'always' and 'complete'... as he avoids 'absolutely'." (Joseph Fletcher)

It should be noted that Fletcher presumes from the outset that the human thought-process isn’t corrupted, and naturally inclined towards maximising love, but is this the case? Can we say that humans are naturally inclined to act lovingly towards each other? The notion that we do this is something many Christians would say runs contrary to their belief in Original Sin, and also potentially undermines the need for Salvation:

"Fletcher’s text is semi-Pelagian. It has not sufficiently considered love against the facts of sin and suffering and in light of the cross. And in it’s marvelous contempt for the inherited body of laws, commandments, principles and rules… it liberates like a demolition bomb more than it gives birth like an act of creation." (Robert E. Fitch, Taken from The Situation Ethics Debate)

Positivism

"Any moral or value judgement in ethics... is a decision. It is a choice." (Joseph Fletcher)

There are always reasons why people choose to act as they do. If this were not the case, then people could never be held accountable for their actions. But it is also sometimes hard to work out a person’s motive for doing what they do, as any court of law would testify.

"We cannot verify moral choices. They may be vindicated, but not verified." (Joseph Fletcher)

As we have already noted earlier, Fletcher is uninterested in speculative theories about morality. Somewhat echoing the thoughts of G. E. Moore he writes, ‘Love like good itself is axiomatic... categorical, like blue or sour or anything else that simply is what it is, a “primary” not definable in terms of anything else.’ This is not to suggest that our actions are irrational, and lacking any moral foundation, but simply a re-directing of the debate. People believe they have ‘good’ reasons for doing what they do, not matter how much we might disagree with them. However, in terms of ‘moral choices’, Fletcher suggests we can only (and should only) evaluate what people do in terms of the consequences of their actions. Only after the event can we speak of things being good, or not.

"There are no “values” in the sense of inherent goods – value is what happens to something when it happens to be useful to love." (Joseph Fletcher)

Personalism

"Treat persons as ends, never as a means to an end." (Immanuel Kant)

From the outset Fletcher wants to put aside any theoretical discussion of “The Good”, in order to focus on doing good. Central to this is doing the most loving thing for people. Ethical legalism will at times find itself negating the needs of persons in order to uphold the Law. Fletcher on the other hand is willing to put aside the Law, if love’s needs are better served. Although the Law may forbid stealing, Fletcher sees no problem with a desperate mother stealing food for her starving children, because she is acting out of love towards them.

"It is not the unbelieving who invite damnation, but the unloving." (Joseph Fletcher)

Fletcher ends with a provocative ‘swipe’ at those who believe being a Christian is all about literally following what is taught in the Bible, believing this can quickly turn into a form of Christian (ethical) Legalism. Instead he takes the view that being ‘Christian’ is not so much to do with what one believes, as what one does. Here we are reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan, which was told by Jesus to demonstrate that sometimes doing the ‘right’ thing breaks all religious, social and cultural boundaries (Luke 10:25-37). As Fletcher concludes:

"Love is not the work of the Holy Spirit, it is the Holy Spirit – working in us. [God] gives himself – to all men, to all sorts and conditions: to believers and unbelievers, high and low, dark and pale, learned and ignorant, Marxists, Christians and Hottentots." (Joseph Fletcher)

Some reflections on the matter of conscience

There have been several popular theories about what exactly our conscience is: An innate sense of right or wrong, inspiration from an external benevolent being, the internalised value systems of our culture, or simply reason making moral judgements and value choices. Fletcher is swayed by non of these entirely, preferring instead to understand conscience in a more functional and pragmatic manner:

"There is no conscience; “conscience” is merely a word for our attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively, fittingly." (Joseph Fletcher)

For Fletcher, conscience is not a thing as such. It is not a reviewer or judge of our past actions. Conscience is proactive, rather than retroactive. To speak of “conscience” is to describe the act of working out the best course of action. It directs our actions and more interested in the future, rather than what has already occurred. Thus for the Christian, moral theology is no longer to be concerned with working out the nature of ‘Good’ and then living in light of this. Life is complex. Moral precepts constructed ex situ tend to get twisted and bent to fit special-case scenarios (such as “Do not steal”, unless your children are starving). 

"There are no easy solutions. After careful consideration of all values involved, the Christian chooses what he believes to be the demands of love in the present situation." (Joseph Fletcher)

Review

Situation Ethics (Part 4): The First Proposition - Love Only is Always Good

Situation Ethics (Part 2): Three Approaches to Decision-Making

"At bottom there are only three alternative routes or approaches to follow in making moral decisions: (1) the legalistic; (2) the antinomian… and (3) the situational. All three have played their part in Western morals, legalism being by far the common and most persistent." (Joseph Fletcher)

Fletcher begins Situation Ethics with a review of what he believes to be the three main approaches to decision-making.

Legalism

The key idea in ethical legalism is that one has a set of laws and regulations already worked out. Religious devotees who believe in a Supreme Being will often claim that moral codes have been Divinely given/received, and as such they are to be followed without question (E.g. The Ten Commandments). As Fletcher notes, legalism has been a ‘common and persistent’ influence in the Western world, most notably through the Christian and Jewish faith traditions (and more recently Islam).

Along with ethical legalism come preset solutions to moral questions. If in doubt you can simply look them up when seeking guidance. This gives people the advantage of actually having an answer to moral questions (in contrast to the position taken by someone like G.E. Moore, who considered the nature of “Goodness” to be something beyond our knowledge, and thus left moral questions open-ended).  It also means there are moral truths and a specific understanding of right and wrong is available, which allows people to avoid making mistakes in life. This is particularly true if the ‘moral-law’ is said to have been given by an all-knowing (omniscient) and all-good (benevolent) Deity. The moral law in this case is considered Good, because it is grounded in the Goodness of the Deity.

Why Fletcher rejects Legalism

Fletcher rejects ethical legalism for two main reasons. First he considers it to be nothing more than, ‘An elaborate system of exceptions and compromise’. For example, the Church of England (Anglican Church) speaks of abortion as a ‘great moral evil’, yet at the same time admits that sometimes allowing a woman to have one may be ‘the lesser of two evils’. In this sense, the moral imperative ‘abortion is a great moral evil’ is compromised. Fletcher also hold that it is impossible for one system to address all the various moral situations a person may find themselves in.

Legalism is also ‘cold and abstract’, because it places the Law above the needs of persons. Fletcher draws attention to the story in the New Testament, where Jesus condemned the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law for the way they treated a woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11). In attempting to uphold the moral law, they were using this woman as bait and treating her in an inhumane manner.

Antinomianism

The key idea in antinomianism, is that there are no rules. There is no moral system one must adhere to, nor any way of living one is obliged to follow. We are free to do whatever we choose to do.

Fletcher has been wrongly accused of being an Antinomian. Although he believes moral codes are able to be set aside for the sake of treating people in a better way, he still finds value in them. Fletcher does not want to live in a totally lawless society.

Why Fletcher rejects Antinomianism

As far as Fletcher is concerned, Antinomians have no means by which to direct any moral decision-making process. They are not only sailing on a captain-less ship, but also a rudderless one,and for him this is an unsound basis for the moral life.

Situationism

The middle-way between ethical legalism, and antinomian unprincipledness.

"The Situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same he is prepared to set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so." (Joseph Fletcher)

Situationism does not cast aside what has already been worked out and deemed ‘good’ insofar as community values are concerned. However, we are not to prioritise Law over persons. The Situationist begins with what a community has deemed to be the right thing to do in similar circumstances in the past, yet feel under no compulsion to respond in the same way unless it was believed to be appropriate to do so. Any moral law will be willingly bypassed, for the sake of acting in a loving way.

"Not the “good” or the “right” but the fitting." (Joseph Fletcher)

In all our actions, we should aim for ‘contextual appropriateness’. In other words, what the best thing to do in one situation, may not necessarily be the best thing to do in another. However, in all situations the intention should remain the same; this being the desire to do the best thing possible for the person, or the individuals concerned.

"The Situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love’s need... Only the commandment to love is categorically good." (Joseph Fletcher)

Is Love the new Law?

In rejecting ethical legalism, Fletcher appears to be replacing this with the law of love. In others words, according to Situationism one has a moral obligation to always act in a loving way towards others! This seems to be somewhat paradoxical, considering Fletcher’s rejection of ‘absolutist’ and ‘normative’ approaches in moral contexts.

Review

Situation Ethics (Part 3): Four Working Principles

Situation Ethics (Part 1): Introduction and Overview

"The reader will find a method here, but no system. It is a method of “situational” or “contextual” decision-making, but system building has no part in it." (Joseph Fletcher)

"There are times when a man has to push his principles aside and do the right thing." (Joseph Fletcher)

What is Situation Ethics?

Published in 1966, the central idea of Situation Ethics: The New Morality is that Christians should work out what is the right thing to do in each unique situation they are faced with, rather than apply, utilise, or obey without question a system of rules or Divine laws. This is because moral dilemmas are as varied as the people who encounter them, and as such it is impossible for one system of ethics to adequately deal with every moral aspect of life. Life is just too complex for this to be even remotely possible, according to Fletcher! A method is also less prescriptive than a system, and will enable us to be more responsive (and relevant) to the different situations we encounter.

Who was Joseph Fletcher?

Joseph Fletcher (1905-91) was an Anglican priest who became professor of ethics at Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge Massachusetts and the School of Medicine at the University of Virginia. Although Situation Ethics was written in the context of Christian belief, Fletcher went on to renounce any belief in God.

Joseph Fletcher was a pioneer in the field of medical ethics, particularly through his book “Morals and Medicine” (1954) which he labeled, ‘the first non-Catholic treatment of biomedical ethics’. Although highly controversial at the time, his ‘patient-centred’ approach to the issue of abortion ("If you knowingly bring a human being into the world with a genetic disorder or a condition, that can be likened to dropping a child out the window on its head") and euthanasia ("'Thou shalt not kill' may have its necessary and tragic exceptions, but there should be no exceptions whatsoever to Christ's admonition: 'Blessed are the merciful' "), centred around the right to choice concerning these matters. Situation Ethics has many themes from these earlier works running through it.

The theological and social landscape

"Situation Ethics rang a bell with thousands of readers. It did so because its time had come in the form of a man whose lifelong experience had prepared him for articulating it and because there was now an audience whose readiness to hear it had reached optimum size." (Harvey Cox)

Situation Ethics was shaped and formed in a theological context where personal experience and the importance of faith being expressed in practical ways were significant influences. A call to embrace the centrality of experience in matters of faith, meant discussions about anything beyond our experience or outside the physical realm were seen to be largely pointless. If we cannot (in theory) experience anything outside the physical realm, such as who or what God is; or even if God exists, then Christians need to be more concerned with exploring what it means to live a ‘Christian life’. These thoughts greatly influenced theologians such as Thomas J Altizer, and were foundational in the “Death of God” school of theology.

In terms of adopting a more practical approach to being a Christian, theologians such as Harvey Cox argued that the church should be more about demonstrating faith through action (faith in-action), rather than trying to develop and maintain ‘institutions’ (faith inaction). He also believed the church should be at forefront of social change in the world. These themes can be seen time and again in Situation Ethics, where Fletcher forgoes discussions about the theoretical nature of Goodness, in favour of simply working for the good of others:

"The hedonist cannot “prove” that pleasure is the highest good, any more than the Christian can “prove” his faith that love is… We cannot verify moral choices. They may be vindicated, but not validated." (Joseph Fletcher)

In terms of the 1960s social scene, Situation Ethics was attractive in the context of a Western society shedding itself of old moralities and attitudes. It offered the ‘free-love’ generation a new (and more attractive) approach to dealing with moral questions. For example, freed from what many regarded as the repressive social and religious attitudes of the older generation, the Sixties saw young people embracing the notion that they had the right to choose when and with whom they would (or could) engage in sexual activity with. Instead, of being told ‘this was wrong’, or ‘that was wrong’, Situation Ethics empowered young people especially to make their own decisions about what they felt was right for them to do in terms of both behaviour and beliefs, and this contributed greatly to the book’s success and widespread appeal.

The Book’s Hero!

"Ethics deals with human relations. Situation ethics puts people at the centre of concern." (Joseph Fletcher)

In the Foreword to his book, Joseph Fletcher recounts the story of a taxi driver a friend of his met in St. Louis, which he believes perfectly describes the nature and value of  Situation Ethics. He writes:

"Let an anecdote set the tone. A friend of mine arrived in St. Louis just as a presidential campaign was ending, and cab driver, not being above the battle, volunteered his testimony. “I and my father and grandfather before me, and their fathers, have always been straight-ticket Republicans.” “Ah”, said my friend, who is himself a Republican, “I take it that means you will vote for Senator So-and-So.” “No,” said the driver, “there are times when a man has to push his principles aside and do the right thing.” That St. Louis cabbie is this book’s hero."

Review

Situation Ethics (Part 2): Three Approaches to Decision-Making