Q4 Evaluate whether Situation Ethics is a useful ethical theory for resolving moral
dilemmas
This essay will evaluate whether Situation Ethics is a useful ethical theory for resolving moral
dilemmas through examining key concepts of the theory, as well as evaluating the criticisms
it faces.
Situation ethics is a normative ethical theory, contrasting meta-ethics and applied ethics,
meaning it is concerned with whether our actions are right or wrong. This ethical theory was
created in the 1960s through the development of a counterculture in the west. It is a
consequentialist theory as it focuses on the consequences of an action rather than the action
itself which deontological theories instead focus on. It is based on a posteriori reasoning,
meaning reasoning we gain from experience, rather than a priori reasoning which is based
on definitions. It is also relativistic as they believe an action is right or wrong depending on
the context of the situation, contrasting absolutist theories which argue an action is always
right or wrong regardless of the situation. Situation ethics is a religious normative ethical
theory, contrasting secular theories, as it focuses on understanding Jesus and his
messages. It aims to be a useful ethical theory which provides solutions to resolve moral
dilemmas by explaining how we know if actions are right are wrong, the usefulness will be
evaluated in this essay.
Situation ethics was founded by Joseph Fletcher, an American priest and professor. The
theory is also heavily supported by John Robinson, a Bishop and professor, who claimed
that Situation Ethics was the only ethic for ‘man come of age’. Robinson criticised
mainstream Christianity, and explains how Situation Ethics best represents Christianity and
Jesus’ teachings were situational. For example, Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath,
although it is explained that no work should be done on the Sabbath. Situation Ethics
explains that this is because Jesus acted in a way that created the most love. It explains that
our actions must maximise agape, meaning unconditional love. This contrasts storge (family
love), philia (friendship love) and eros (sexual love). This maximisation of agape gives a
clear understanding of how we can resolve moral dilemmas. This links to how Fletcher
explains that Situation Ethics takes a ‘middle way’. He explains two extremes: antinomianism
and legalism. Antinomianism refers to moral laws being unimportant and the only important
thing needed is faith in God, yet Fletcher criticises this as there is no guidance given on how
we should act. Legalism, however, explains that we must precisely follow the 10
commandments, but Fletcher also criticises this as it makes rules more important than
people. Hence, Fletcher’s Situation Ethics explains that we should do whatever promotes the
most amount of love, which gives guidance as well as putting people before moral law,
hence may provide a useful ethical theory.
Furthermore, Situation Ethics is explained to have 4 presuppositions. Presuppositions refers
to assumptions behind a theory. The presuppositions Fletcher explains are pragmatism,
relativism, positivism and personalism. Pragmatism explains that the proposed action must
be practically possible. Relativism explains the rejection of absolute moral rules. Positivism
explains that the most important message in Christian teaching is to love. Finally,
personalism explains that people are more important than laws. After explaining these four
presuppositions, Fletcher laid out six fundamental principles of his theory: love is the only
intrinsic good, the main Christian teaching is to love, love and justice are the same, love wills
the neighbour’s good, the end justifies the means and love’s decisions are made
situationally. Therefore, through these presuppositions and fundamental principles, we can
learn how to know whether actions are good or not, which is essential for resolving moral
dilemmas.
