Situation Ethics (Part 9): The Sixth Proposition - Love Decides There and Then

“The Sixth Proposition: Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Wanted: A System

“Too many people at heart long for an ethical system of prefabricated, pretailored morality.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Fletcher believes most Christians like to “walow or cower” in the security of the (religious) Law. They are afraid to trust their ability make independently right decisions; often seen as a painful and threatening step to take were they to do this. A lot of this hesitance may be attributed to the belief that the Fall of humanity and the collapse of the moral and natural world order were a direct result of humans choosing to assert their own will, as opposed to living a life of simple and unquestioning obedience to God’s decrees (see Genesis 3). Therefore, Situationism faces the challenge that humans have a corrupted will and are primarily selfish and self-serving, rather than God and love-seeking.

Fletcher would obviously reject any notion of the innate corruption of humanity, arguing instead that a person is capable of living free from the Law and is primarily a person of good intent. Yet in saying this he does accept that freedom comes with a price. Living free from the Law is risky and mistakes will be made. As Luther says, we “sin bravely’, but for Fletcher a life of moral adventure far outweighs one lived under Law. Of course, the objection Fletcher faces is that if a Divinely revealed moral Law offers a better chance of living well and lessens the possibility of making serious moral mistakes, then why not live according to this than our own ‘best guesses’?

The Gray Area

The penumbra: An area between darkness and light. For Fletcher, so many of life’s ethical decision fall into a ‘gray area’ where there are no clear answers. There is no certainty. We cannot rely on the past (revelation/tradition) or the future (reward/punishment) to tell us what to do, but must make the best decision in the present; the here and now.

“This is where the call to sin bravely is sharpest.” (Joseph Fletcher)

• Something to do: Take a moment to read the story of David Sharp. What would a Situationist do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sharp_(mountaineer)

The “method” of Situation Ethics is to make the best (or most loving) decision in the context of a situation. Is leaving a man to die on a mountain a loving thing to do? Most certainly not. Furthermore, if the Law dictates that we it is wrong to “kill” someone, then leaving them is wrong and we should do all we can to save them. But if in the context of the situation we determine that a rescue attempt would jeopardise the lives of others in the party, then for the Situationist the “right” decision would be to leave them. We have not killed anyone, nor have we compromised a religious law. We have simply made the best and most appropriate decision in the moment, and that is all.

“Petty moralism is forced to come of age and to face the complicated facts of life.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The End of Ideology

“It is often and acutely described as the leap from Sunday to Monday” (Joseph Fletcher)

Trying to adhere to petty and rigid moral laws, which do not fit the facts of life, is the cause of much conflict of conscience in persons. However Legalists and Ideologists are “terrible simplifiers”. The realities of life continually demonstrate that prescribed solutions are simply not practical, or even attainable. Telling a ‘white lie’ for example is evidence that the Moral Law cannot operate according to absolutes, and that sometimes a situation requires a compromise to be made.

“For real decision-making, freedom is required, an open-ended approach to situations.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Fanatic Virtue

“Fanatic love of virtue has done more damage to men and society than all the vices put together.” (Raymond Bruckberger)

• Something to do: Compare the different approaches to moral issues between Extremists and Situationists in the article: Why women are still being stoned to death in 2015 by Zainab Salbi

True ethics is not undertaken in abstraction, but in the context of situations. Attempting to impose a pre-prescribed morality will lead to great harm being done, whereas if our intent is to do the most loving things then it follows that our actions will always be loving.

“By faith we live in the past, by hope we live in the future, but by love we live in the present.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Legalism is wrong because it attempts to push love back into the past. It tries to impose a morality based on what has already been done, rather what should be done in the present. Loving in the present means we must consider the full range of means, motives and consequences when deciding how to act.

• Something to do: Discuss Dan Savage’s answer to the following moral issue in the context of Legalism and Situationism (NOTE: Strong language): Savage Love Letter of the Day: Another Sexless Marriage Question. What are the pros and cons of his response?

“Every moral action should have in view a concrete living person and not the abstract good.” (Nicolas Berdyaev)

When Rights are Bought

Although the path of love is relative, the commitment to act in love is absolute. Our actions are always contextual. However our actions also have consequences; we do not live life in a vacuum. For example, the right to say what we want (freedom of speech) maybe be held as a legal tenet, but our right to freely speak our mind is often determined by who gets hurt, and how much as a result. Where the Situationist loves the Law it is only because in that instance the Law serves the interests of love, and that is all.

Situation Ethics (Part 8): The Fifth Proposition - Love Justifies its Means

“The Fifth Proposition: Only the end justifies the means; nothing else.” (Joseph Fletcher)

What Justifies a Means?

In Christian ethics, it has been generally unpopular to suggest that in living the Good Life, the end can justify the means.* For Fletcher, this is nonsense, because for him without having an end in sight means an act is simply meaningless, random, or pointless. We would literally have no reason for doing anything. Even the very notion of ‘a means’ is only meaningful in light of some end. No, we do x (means) because of y (end).

However, the question begs; what end justifies a means?** The first thing to note is that not any end will justify any means. We also cannot do anything we want (anarchy). Instead, we are to act appropriately and according to the situation. Also, a means to an end in one situation may not be the right means to an end in another. As such we are not to create universal principles out of one specific and unique act. Doing so has the potential to become dangerously legalistic.

We should also seek to act with care. We cannot do anything to achieve an end. The means we choose should be reflected in the end we are seeking to reach, meaning we will act appropriately according to what the situation requires. ‘Means’ are “proximate ends”, as Thomas Aquinas called them. They are not “ethically indifferent”. The end truly justifies the means! (For more on this see “The Four Factors” below.)

“The means used ought to fit the end, ought to be fitting. If they are, they are justified.” (Joseph Fletcher quoting H. R. Niebuhr)

Of course, the Legalist might counter that if the end justifies the means, then this can lead people to commit an evil act in the name of doing Good. Fletcher rejects this criticism on two counts:

1. To say doing evil is good violates the rule of non-contradiction
2. We are not to ascribe to any act the formal property of Good or Evil. In itself an act is neither intrinsically good or bad (for more on this see: Love Only is Good)

Law Entangles Itself

Fletcher believes Legalism ultimately leads people to act dubiously. For instance, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that there is never a time when telling a lie is justified. This is because telling a lie would contradict the Categorical Imperative; that one should only do those things you would wish others to do. As we normally prefer people not to lie to us, so we cannot be justified in lying to others. Also, successfully telling lies relies on the notion that most of the time people are telling the truth, meaning lies can be disguised as truth-claims. Yet if lying became the norm, then the very act of lying would be undermined. It would be logically impossible to successfully tell a lie because we would have no reason to think people are ever telling the truth. We would just assume they are lying (which they would be). Thus, Kant concedes that lying is illogical, wrong and never justified.

However in practical terms this would mean that, according to Kant’s logic, Germans hiding Jews from Nazis during the Second World War would be morally wrong to lie if asked, “Are you hiding Jews?” Yet for all one would commend the intent to never lie, one cannot help feel that answering “Yes!” to the Nazis in this situation would be morally dubious.

In the end, Legalism creates logical problems. When one is tied to the notion that value is inherent in an act, one cannot justify using a ‘Bad’ means to achieve a ‘Good’ end. If the means is deemed inherently wrong then no matter how good the end is, one cannot ever be justified in doing it. If we do then we arrive at the absurdist notion that we have committed the ‘lesser of two evils’, or in this instance maybe ‘told a white lie’. This is legalism entangling itself up. Either an act is wrong and should never be done, or an act is not wrong and can sometimes be done. We cannot say something is inherently wrong and should never be done, but then in some instances justify doing it.

“Love could justify anything. There is no justification other than love’s expedients.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The Four Factors

Situation Ethics has much in common with Utilitarianism, the most basic comparison being that they justify a means (act) in light of the positive end it achieves. In the case of Utilitarianism, it is the maximisation of pleasure (or happiness) which makes an act Good (or not). In the case of Fletcher’s Situation Ethics, it is the promotion of Love:

“There is only one end, one goal, one purpose which is not relative and contingent, always an end in itself. Love.” (Joseph Fletcher)

In Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism, he introduced a calculus as a means to examine situations in order to act appropriately. Although Fletcher does not propose using a calculus, he does consider the following four questions vital in determining the best course of action in any situation:

1. What is the end being sought?
2. By what means can this be achieved?
3. What is the motive behind the act?
4. What are the foreseeable consequences of the action?

“Legalism often takes the position that to be wrong an action need be at fault on only one of these four scores, whereas in order to be right it must be right on all four.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The important point to note here is that for Fletcher both the means and the end are contingent and relative. There are no absolutes. No act has any intrinsic value attached to it. We are to address each situation uniquely and on its own terms. The right thing to do in one situation does not justify us making a rule or law to be applied everywhere (this is Legalism). The right thing to do in one situation may be the wrong thing to do in another. Likewise, the wrong thing to do in one situation may be the right thing to do in another.

“There is only one end, one goal, one purpose which is not relative and contingent, always an end in itself. Love.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Critics of Situation Ethics are quick to point out the slippery-slope argument associated with this way of thinking: What if everyone did this? For example, in justifying euthanasia in one situation the Legalist might suggest this will lead people to kill elderly relatives when they are being inconvenienced by their failing health, or what’s the point of keeping them alive any longer and waste vital medical resources?

As persuasive as this might be, the slippery-slope argument is actually grounded on the notion that in order for an act to be moral, it must be universally applicable (a form of Kant’s Categorical Imperative). But how reasonable is this claim? For one, every act given the right context is capable of inflicting harm on others. Also, the fact that there will always be some who ‘abuse the system’ does not mean the system is bad, or that decision-making should be limited (“Abuse does not bar use”). However the truly problematic nature of universals is that they basically overlook the varieties of human life, and this is something Situation Ethics keeps at the heart of the moral question.

The cry of, “What if everyone did this?” is not a valid counter-argument, but simply a way of letting the law remain in control.

Hallowing the Means

Some final thoughts…

“However you decide your choices, the end justifies the means… the only self-validating end in the Christian situation ethic is love.” (Joseph Fletcher)

“We may always do what would be evil in some contexts if in this circumstance love gains the balance. It is love’s business to calculate the gains and losses, and to act for the sake of its success.” (Joseph Fletcher)

“We have to refuse to admit doing a preponderantly good deed just because the necessary means happens to be evil “generally” or because it entails some evil. For us, whether it is good or evil, right or wrong, is not in the deed but by its circumstances.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The Sixth Proposition - Love Decides There and Then 

Notes

* “The idea that "the ends justify the means" admits that there is something inherently wrong with "the means". Indeed, it admits that "the means" are actually unjustified by themselves. The claim, then, is that although "the means" are unjustifiable in themselves, that a particular outcome that is achieved by them results in the justification of the unjustified. Christianity certainly does not have any basis for this idea, and it doesn't need any. I know of a particular religion that believes it's alright for its followers to lie in a conversation with someone of another religion if lying helps them win the argument. Christianity, however, does not need to do this, because Christianity believes that truth is on its side. That's a key point, because Truth invites questioning, whereas lies and falsehoods do not.” (Is “the ends justify the means” compatible with Christianity?. Web. July 25, 2015. http://christianity.stackexchange.com.

**Although Fletcher claims Christian ethics has largely rejected the notion of the end justifying the means, this is not entirely true. For the aim (end) of most Christians has been first and foremost to glorify God in their lives. So these people only do those things they believe will please God (such as following God’s commandments). However, on a lesser scale yes; Christian morality has tended towards rejecting moral tenets such as ‘working to increase pleasurable outcomes in the world’ for example, as these are largely deemed to be putting human interests before God’s.

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.

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