Situation

Ethics
by
Joseph
Fletcher
 I. Biographical Background

Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991), an American Episcopalian priest, was

perhaps the most influential advocate for situation ethics in the
20th century. Fletcher had a long career as a professor at the Episcopal
Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard Divinity School,
and the University of Virginia and wrote ten books, two of which are
his Situation Ethics: The New Morality (1966) and his Moral
Responsibility: Situation Ethics at Work (1967a). These two books found
large audiences but were widely criticized. Later in life Fletcher left the
Christian faith and became a self-proclaimed humanist and agnostic. At
the University of Virginia, Fletcher turned his focus to bioethics,
and is now known as the “Patriarch of Bioethics” for his foundational work
in that emerging field. Fletcher’s situationism is perched between the
ethical approaches of legalism and antinomianism and is a pragmatic and
relativistic methodology of ethics that makes moral principles or laws
subservient to the one absolute moral law of love.

First, Fletcher’s analysis of the three main ethical approaches will be

reviewed. Second, the theoretical basis of situationism will be established.
Third, the methodology of situation ethics will be examined. Fourth,
Fletcher’s ideas concerning moral principles will be explored. Fifth, the
relationship between situationism and the Law of Moses will be reviewed.
Sixth, Fletcher’s norm of love will be assessed. Seventh, a critical
evaluation of Fletcher’s work will be made, following the earlier order of
review.

Fletcher’s Situation Ethics (1966) and Moral Responsibility (1967a) will

be used as primary sources for understanding Fletcher’s situationism
 II. Synopsis: Situational Ethics

Background:

Fletcher tells us that moral decisions often fall into 3 categories:

1. Legalism: There exists a series of well defined and absolute

laws (secular, cultural and religious) that the individual must
implement in every situation.

2. Antinomianism: Each individual enters the decision-making

process with no laws, guiding principles or maxims, believing that they
will make the right decision spontaneously in the moment, and based
on the unique situation.  (Some antinomianists believe this “right
decision” information comes to them from an outside source such as
the Holy Spirit, or the combined wisdom of the ages under the guise of
intuition.)

3. Situationalism: If Legalism and Antinomianism are the two

ends of the spectrum, Situationalism falls between them.   Each
individual has an understanding of the “general rules” and guiding
principles of his/her culture and theology.  S/he uses this information
to evaluate the situation and then adopts or rejects the “rule” so that
the Love (or highest good) can be served in the situation.

Note: Because Fletcher comes from a Christian theology background, he

describes the ultimate goal as Love, defined as Judeo-Christian Love, the
Love of which only God is capable but which all people should strive to
achieve.  (Think “love thy neighbor” Love.)  For the non-Christian, Fletcher
suggests Love must be defined as some other “highest good” which will
represent the one and only standard.
Four Principles (Presuppositions):

1. Pragmatism: A practical success-oriented, action-oriented

position.  It focuses on what is right, what is good, what works. 

2. Relativism: The understanding of truth varies based on the observers

and the situation.  Relativism must be relative to something and in the
case of situational ethics; all things are relative to Love.

3. Positivism: A belief or faith is “posited” or declared, and is then

supported by logic.  This is demonstrated in Situational ethics by
positing a belief in God as Love (or a higher good) and then reasoning
what is required in any situation to support that belief.

4. Personalism: This is placing people, not principles or things, at the

center of consideration.

Six Propositions: According to Fletcher, Jesus summed up the Mosaic law

and the Ten Commandments in one word—love. Therefore, there are no
commandments which may not be broken in some situation for love’s sake.
Every law is breakable by love. As Augustine put it: "Love with care and then
what you will, do." Love is the one universal law. When all else fades, love
will abide forever. According to Jesus, love is the earmark of His disciples
(John 13:35).

1. Love is an attitude, not an attribute. The only human thing that has
intrinsic value is love.

2. Whatever is the loving thing to do in any given situation is the right

thing to do.
 3. One does not follow love for the law’s sake; one follows the law only
for love’s sake. Love and law sometimes conflict and when they do it is
the Christian’s obligation to put love over the law.

4. Love and justice are identical. Justice means to give others their "due,"
and love is their due.

5. Love is a multidirectional and utilitarian principle. Calculating the

remote consequences, it strives to bring the greatest good to the
greatest number of people. Love foresees the need to use force, if
necessary, to protect the innocent; or to disobey an unjust civil law; or
even to revolt against the state, if the end consequence is for the
greater good of the majority of the people. "Only the end justifies the
means; nothing else." The loving end justifies any means.

6. Love decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively. Love does not
prescribe in advance what specific course of actions should be taken.
Love operates apart from a pretailored, prefabricated list of moral
rules. Love functions circumstantially, it does not "make up its mind"
before it sees the facts in any given situation.

How Fletcher applies his theory:

1. Altruistic or sacrificial adultery: a German mother was committed

to a Russian concentration camp. Pregnant women were considered a
liability and were released. This mother found a friendly guard who
sympathized with her situation and willingly impregnated her. She was
released and returned to her home and raised the child as part of her
reunited family. Her adultery was justified since it served to reunite
her with her children and family who needed her.
2. Patriotic prostitution: a young mother working as a spy for the US
was asked to use her sexuality to ensnare a rival spy. When she
protested that she could not put her personal integrity on the line by
offering sex for hire, she was told: "It’s like your brother risking his life
and limb in the war to serve his country. There is no other way." For
the greater good of her country, it was the loving thing to do.

3. Sacrificial suicide: Taking one’s own life is not morally wrong if it is

done in love for others. If a man has only two choices of taking an
expensive medication which will deplete his family’s finances and
cause his insurance to lapse, or else refusing the medicine and living
only 3 months, it is the loving thing to do to refuse the medicine and
spare his family. And, non-theoretically, a German nun taking the
place of a Jew in the gas chambers; or a soldier taking his own life to
avoid being tortured into betraying his comrades to the enemy.

4. Acceptable abortion: an unmarried schizophrenic patient becomes

pregnant after being raped. Her father petitioned for abortion but the
hospital refused because they said it was "non-therapeutic" and
therefore illegal. The father maintained that it was the loving thing to
do to prevent this child’s birth. In another real situation, a Romanian
Jewish doctor aborted 3000 babies of Jewish mothers in concentration
camps because, if pregnant, the mothers were to be incinerated. This
means that the doctor actually saved 3000 and prevented the murder
of 6000. This was the loving thing to do.

5. Merciful murder: a mother smothers her own crying baby to prevent

her group from being discovered and killed by a band of hostile
Indians. A ship’s captain orders some men thrown from an overloaded
lifeboat to prevent it from sinking and killing everyone on board , thus
killing a "few" for the "greater good" of the majority. Not resuscitating
 a monstrously deformed baby when it is birthed is the loving thing to
do both for the child, for the parents, and family.

Sources:

Gilbert, Mark. http://www.jmarkgilbert.com/atheists.html. Date accessed

March 6, 2011.

Wadholm, Robert R. http://www.scribd.com/doc/28748487/Joseph-Fletcher

%E2%80%99s-Situation-Ethics. Date accessed March 6, 2011.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rlindbeck/fletcher.htm#Top. Date accessed

March 6, 2011.

http://www.gospel-herald.com/genesis_studies/situational_ethics.htm. Date
accessed March 6, 2011.