Three Critical Responses to Fletcher's Situation Ethics (1/3)

The following notes are based on an essay by Henlee Barnette in “The Situation Ethics Debate, edited by Harvey Cox”, which is a review of literature generated around the publication of “Situation Ethics” by Joseph Fletcher.

Click here to read an introductory article on Fletcher’s situation ethics

Henlee H. Barnette - "The New Ethics: 'Love Alone'"

Henlee Barnette analysed the strengths and shortcomings of situation ethics in the following manner:

Strengths

• Situation ethics is right to focus on love, as this is a central motif in Christianity and the New Testament.

• Christian morality cannot and should not be reduced to a set rules, which try to be applicable to all.

"Jesus laid down no rules for Christian conduct... Rather, he presented illustrations and principles of the Christian style of life.”

• Placing people rather than principles at the forefront of morality has genuine merit.

"The Christian way of meeting the spiritual needs of men is to be redemptive, and this means to treat them as persons.”

• Fletcher's work has opened up an important avenue of debate in modern Christian ethics, and for this reason alone it cannot be ignored.

Shortcomings

• There is an assumption that people innately know what “Good” is, or in Fletcher's case, there is an assumption that people know what it means to serve love’s interests.

• What is ‘Love’? Fletcher seems to use it as a catchall term for all manner of things such as, “the intrinsically good, justice, principle, disposition, ruling norm, etc.” Love is made the priority, but never given any content.

"There is ambiguity with reference to the use… of the terms "situation" and "love." One is never certain what [Situationists] mean by these terms.” [Brackets mine]

• In Christianity love goes beyond the law, but does not replace it. Keeping the commandments, for example, is actually a demonstration of love towards one’s neighbour.

“The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:9-10)

• Fletcher equates moral law with ecclesiastical law. The fact that Jesus put aside religious laws for the sake of acting appropriately in a situation (Luke 6:1-11), does not mean all moral laws (religious and civil) should be set aside when one deems it fit to do so.

• Fletcher is a Utilitarian, but in this case agape replaces pleasure (maximising love). Therefore his Situation Ethics falls foul of the same criticisms leveled against Utilitarianism.

• As a Christian ethic Fletcher’s Situation Ethics lacks theological depth:

“Noticeably absent… is any is any serious concern for repentance, judgement, human nature and redemption.”

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 7): The Fourth Proposition - Love is not Liking

"The Fourth Proposition: Love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like him or not." (Joseph Fletcher)

Never sentimentalize love

Christian love is agapeic (committed to our neighbour’s well-being), as opposed to erotic (sexual) or philic (friendship). This means agape is about serving another’s needs first, not our own. It is also not doing something because we are emotionally driven to do it (i.e. because we like someone). We do something simply because it is the right thing to do. It is as Bishop Stephen Neill describes, “the steady directing of the human will towards the eternal well-being of another.” Agape is a decision, a choice! This is why agape can be commanded, and why the opposite of love is not hatred (feeling), but indifference (lack of intent).

“[Christian love] does not seek the deserving, nor is it judgemental when it makes its decisions - judgemental, that is, about the people it wants to serve.” (Joseph Fletcher [bracket mine])

“Christian love is the business of loving the unlovable, i.e., the unlikeable.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Christian love is not sentimental and recognises that fact that not everyone is likeable. There are people who are nice, and people who are not, but both deserve to be shown love equally (“Loving and liking are not the same thing”). This is why Christian love is radical because it does not seek anything in return for acts of kindness, generosity, mercy, patience etc.

“For [God] makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” (Matthew 5:45, World English Bible [bracket mine])

The neighbour is anybody

Stranger-neighbour; enemy-neighbour. Christian love seeks the good of all:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48, World English Bible)

Despite the fact that all are to be treated equitably, Christians are not to lose their sense of value. To serve all in love does not mean we are obliged to like everyone, or even eradicate the distinction between good and evil. What we are talking about here is simply a command to treat everyone in the same manner.

“One cannot command that one feel love for a person but only that one deal lovingly with him.” (Martin Buber)

“But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

True Christian love is one that gives and expects nothing in return.

Self-love for the neighbour’s sake

We are naturally selfish creatures; prone to self-love before that of our neighbour. So how do we turn “self-centered self-love into self-love for the sake of others?” It is surely possible in the following steps:

1. Love of ourself for our own sake
2. Love of our neighbour for our own sake
3. Love of neighbour for our neighbour’s sake
4. Love of ourself again, but this time for the right reason (i.e. for our neighbour’s sake)

“If we love ourselves for our own sakes, that is wrong. If we love ourselves for God’s sake and the neighbour’s, then self-love is right.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Calculation is not cruel

“All of this is thoughtful love, careful as well as care-full.” (Joseph Fletcher)

In order to make sound moral choices, one needs to have good information, but also the right disposition. With this in mind we make choices carefully, and thoughtfully. In many ways we are dealing with another version of Utilitarianism, only this time we are replacing ‘maximising pleasurable outcomes’ with ‘doing the most loving thing’. As with Utilitarianism, we are also not to discriminate in seeking the best outcome. If helping our ‘enemy’ is the most loving thing to do, then we do that, but if in helping our enemy we will hurt more friends, then we do not do that. At the end of the day neither our neighbour nor our enemy has stronger claim over the other. Our friends do not deserve more of our love than our enemies, just the situation:

“Which should you save if you can carry only one from a burning building… If the choice is between your own father and a medical genius who has discovered a cure for a common fatal disease, you carry out the genius if you understand agape.” (Joseph Fletcher)

To be sentimental about love means we will be driven by feelings to do loving deeds. For instance, we might take pity on the person standing by the side of the road asking for money, and so give them something as an expression of our love for them. Agape, on the other hand, asks whether giving this person money is the most loving thing to do. Are they really in genuine need? As the Didache* states, “Let your alms sweat in your palm until you know to whom you are to give it.”

“Love’s business is not play favourites or find friends or to “fall” for some one-and-only. It plays the field, universalises its concern, has a social interest, is no respecter of persons.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Review

The Fifth Proposition - Love Justifies its Means

NOTES

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

Situation Ethics (Part 6): The Third Proposition - Love and Justice are the same

The Third Proposition: Love and Justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else. (Joseph Fletcher)

Love is careful

One criticism of Fletcher’s Situation Ethics is that he never clearly defines love, but with the third proposition love becomes equated with Justice. Acting in love is not something done without any sense of responsibility towards others but is something which requires proper care and thought. In short, it is acting responsibly, and in this way Justice is love distributed.

Here is precisely the serious difficulty of love. How are its favors to be distributed among so many beneficiaries? We never have one neighbour at a time. (Joseph Fletcher)

We are reminded here of the Third Proposition, this being that situation ethics is positivistic; one is always making a choice to act in love towards others However, this needs to be understood in the context of the wider community. When choosing to act in love, everything and everyone must be taken into account. “No man is an island”, as the old saying goes!

As “persons” we are individuals in-community. Therefore love’s outreach is many-sided and wide-aimed, not one-directional; it is pluralist, not monist; multilateral, not unilateral. (Joseph Fletcher)

Wrongful Separation

We cannot separate love and Justice; neither one should be given priority over the other. For instance, we cannot decide to give away all our money to those in need, without also paying back those we owe money to (our creditors). To give away all our money to the poor may appear to be doing a loving thing, but if we don’t also repay what we owe, then it is actually an unjust (and, therefore, unloving) deed.

People also suffer and end up being treated badly when love and justice are separated. We cannot hold the law above persons, and neither can love be selective. All voices must be heard, and all demands considered equally. Love cannot be sentimental nor can it be concerned with just individual relationships. We should love all our neighbours (plural), not merely our neighbour.

It is often said that what is “due” to the neighbour is giving him his “rights”... [But] all alleged rights and duties are as contingent and relative as all values. The right to religious freedom, free speech, public assembly, private property, sexual liberty, life itself, the vote - all are validated only by love. (Joseph Fletcher)

Justice is nothing other than love working out its problems. (Joseph Fletcher)

Love Using its Head

Justice is love calculating and working out its duties and obligations. In terms of social policy, situation ethics appears to have much in common with UTILITARIANISM (but in this case it replaces ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ principle with love (agape)). Situation ethics also agrees with DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS, in that we should always seek to do the good (our duty), this being to, “seek the goal of the most love in every situation.”

Situation ethics is not individualistic, but makes decisions in the context of the wider community. In this way it follows Kant, by not treating others as a means to our own end:

Love does not permit us to solve our problems or sooth our wounds at the expense of innocent third parties. Our neighbours include all our neighbours. (Joseph Fletcher)

There also can be no impartial response to situations. We cannot simply throw our hands up and say, “It’s the law!”, for example. The decision to act in love is always a choice; a decision to do the most responsible thing.

Something to discuss: Talk about the actions of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. in the context of situation ethics. Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Situationist?

Whenever or if ever any civil rights law ceases to serve love according to an enlightened grasp of love’s outreach, it should be thrown aside. (Joseph Fletcher)

Review

The Fourth Proposition - Love is not Liking