Author: Gemma

Key questions
Is agape is the only intrinsic good? To what degree?	2. Does Fletchers’ Situation Ethics promote immoral behaviour?	3. Does Situation Ethics promote justice? To what extent?
4. Is Situation Ethics effective in dealing with ethical issues?	5. Should agape replace religious rules?	6. Does Situation Ethics provide a practical basis for making moral decisions? For religious believers, non-believers or both?

Ethics Theme 3—Teleological Ethics: Situation Ethics Knowledge Organiser

Scholars
7. Joseph Fletcher	8. James Childress	9. J A T Robinson	10.Aquinas	11. Augustine
12. Emil Brunner	13. Durant Drake	14. Reinhold Niebuhr	15. Richard Niebuhr	16. Paul Lehmann
17. Whitehead	18. Arthur Miller	19. William Barclay

Key Words
20. Agape: The ‘selfless love’ principle which is the foundation of Situation Ethics developed by Joseph Fletcher	21. Antinomianism: The idea that people are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities
22. Conscience: A person’s moral sense of right and wrong- the part of a person that judges the morality of one's own actions	23. Joseph Fletcher: American professor 1905-1991 who formalised the theory known as Situation Ethics in his book ‘Situation Ethics: The New Morality’ written in 1966
24. Four working principles: One of the two sets of guiding principles of Situation Ethics devised by Fletcher in order to help decide what the most loving action in any given situation would be- they include personalism	25.Homosexual relationship: A person being in a romantic and intimate (sometimes sexual) relationship with someone of the same sex
26. Legalism: An ethical approach based on prescribed rules by which people can make every moral decision- it is often linked to the idea that obedience to a code of religious law is necessary in order for a person to gain eternal life	27. Personalism: One of Fletcher’s four working principles which states that people and not laws should be put first in any given situation
28. Polyamorous relationships: This is the practice and acceptance of intimate relationships that are not exclusive with respect to other sexual relationships- with knowledge and consent of everyone involved	29. Positivism: One of Fletcher’s four working principles: it means that one must accept that acting in the most loving way is the right thing to do without any rational proof that it is
30. Pragmatism: One of Fletcher’s four working principles and means one must evaluate the situation and perform whatever action is practical/workable	31. Relativism: One of Fletcher’s four working principles which is the view that there are no universal moral norms but that an action should be judged right or wrong depending on the social cultural and individual circumstances in each situation
32. Six fundamental principles: One of the two sets of guiding principles of Situation Ethics devised by Fletcher in order to help decide what the most loving action in any given situation would be- includes the principle that only one thing is intrinsically good namely love and nothing else at all

Background

Agape

33. Fletcher ‘s Situation Ethics is from his 1966 book: ‘Situation Ethics: The New Morality.’
34. Fletcher rejected the following: Legalism = all actions should be governed by rules ‘ choking web of laws.’ Antinomianism = there should be no rules at all. Not enough guidance and this leads to immorality. The conscience in a religious sense. Conscience is a verb (process) not a noun (thing).
35. Fletcher’s SA a middle ground between extremes. It also relativist= no action is right or wrong in itself. There are no universal right or wrongs. It is Teleological = the right and wrong of an action should be judged by the end outcome and not on the act itself. Finally it is Consequentialist= suggesting morality of action based on the consequences (the outcomes) of actions.

36. Fundamental feature of Bible is Love. Fletcher argued this one single and simple guideline principle could work out whether consequences of actions were right or wrong in every moral situation. Liked specific word for love used in Bible=Agape. This is ‘selfless love’ which is directed towards others, given unconditionally and given to all. Summed up in 1 Corinthians 13 and the parable of the Good Samaritan.
37. Fletcher made agape his boss principle, meaning it should never be disobeyed. He considered how it developed: Originated in Old Testament with ‘Aheb,’ outward looking love toward God and humans. In New Testament, Jesus argued love is greatest commandment. Seen in unconditional love Jesus showed. Augustine developed this further making love the ultimate virtue.

Fletcher’s 6 fundamental principles

Application to homosexual relationships

38. Love is the only Good – love is intrinsic good meaning good in itself.
39. Love is the ruling Norm of Christianity - religious
moral rules had been given false high status in
Christian ethics. “Jesus and Paul replaced the precepts
of the Torah with the living principle of agape.”
40 Love equals Justice: True justice is just love at work
in society. If everyone worked towards creating loving
outcomes there would be no injustices.
41. Love for All: Moral agents should act in loving way
to everyone; even enemies.
42. Loving Ends Justify The Means: Fletcher rejects
deontological approach to ethics and is instead
suggesting teleological approach (judging the outcome
instead of the act itself).
43. Love Decides Situationally: There should be no rules about what should and should not be done in particular situations.

48. Applying Boss Principle: would never say homosexual relationships are always wrong or always right as SA is relativist. Homosexual relationships may be ethically good if agape consequences are achieved. So if loving commitment then ignore Biblical rules. If the relationship was based on lust then the consequences are selfish, agape is not served so it is wrong.
Applying 6 fundamental principles and 4 working principles:
49. Fundamental Principle 2 - Love is the ruling Norm of Christianity would say if homosexual acts were carried out for an agape love consequence then they are right.
50. Working Principle 2 – Relativism makes it clear that homosexual acts can never be always morally wrong or right. It must be judged on consequences.
51. Fundamental Principle 5 - Loving Ends Justify The Means would say if the homosexual act was for selflessly loving (agape) consequences then it is right.
52. Working Principle 1 – Pragmatism however could potentially overrule the above point, if chances of the homosexual act deepening the relationship were slim then it is wrong e.g. both were about to go to university miles away from each other.

Fletcher’s 4 working principles

44. Pragmatism: bad actions can be justified by loving consequences but only if loving consequences are realistically going to occur.
45. Relativism: No action is right or wrong in itself. An action’s rightness or wrongness depends on its loving outcome.
46. Positivism: Situation Ethics is based on faith and not reason (proof).
47. Personalism: People are more important than rules.

Application to polyamorous relationships

53. Applying Boss Principle: Polyamorous relationships could be ethically good if consequences of relationship led to agape. If all show loving commitment in the relationship then Biblical laws can be disregarded because agape is better served by allowing the polyamorous relationship.
Applying 6 fundamental principles and 4 working principles:
54. Fundamental principle 2 'love is the ruling norm of Christianity.’ If loving consequences occur then Biblical rules suggesting only monogamous sex within marriage is moral can be ignored.
55. Fundamental Principle 6 - Love Decides Situationally. Fletcher would never say polyamorous relationships are always wrong or always right because it is a relativist ethic. Each polyamorous relationship should be judged on ‘case by case’ basis.
56. If the relationship was based just around lust (the selfish desire for self-satisfaction – such as casual sex) then SA would say it is wrong because it is creating selfish consequences and not loving ones. In this case, Situation Ethics would say stick to the religious rules on polyamorous relationships because love is not best served by breaking the rule.