Situational Ethics by Joseph Fletcher

Christian Ethics is not a scheme of codified conduct. It is a purposive effort to relate love to a
world of relativities through a casuistry obedient to love. Its a radical ethic of the situation! with
nothing prescribed e"cept love.# $
Joseph Fletcher %The New Look in Christian Ethics! &arvard 'ivinity (ulletin)
*
1.Situationism explained/ Introduction
Joseph Fletcher! the proponent of the aposteriori+agapeic approach
,
states Situationism is a
method! not a substantive ethic#
-
and it claims allegiance to one unbrea.able norm and it can be
treated as a one+norm absolutism. /ccording to Fletcher! the /merican professor who founded
the theory of situational ethics in the *012s! his position is neither a lawless relativism which says
there is no law for anything! nor a legalistic absolutism which has laws for everything. 3ather! he
contends that there is one law for everything! the law of love.
4
In this paper! I would li.e to deal in
deep what Joseph Fletcher had tried to give to the academia of ethical studies.
2.The Extremes of Legalism and Antinomianism
Fletcher is very careful in dealing the radical right and radical left in formulating his
situation ethics which is very much said to have influenced by 'ietrich (onheoffer
5
. 6ithout
moving far from both legalism and antinomianism! Fletcher attempts firmly to establish one
absolute norm which can be applied
1
in times of ma.ing moral decisions.
7
Fletcher defines the
differences between legalists and antinomians. 8he legalist is one who enters every decision
ma.ing situation encumbered with a bundle of pre+determined rules and regulations. In terms of
love! the legalist believes in the love of duty and the situationist holds to the duty of love.
Fletcher mentions the antinomians who are complete libertines with no norms and each of their
moral decisions is spontaneous and unprincipled! and it is purely based on the situation of the
*
&armon .9 Smith and 9ouis 6. &odges. The Christian and his Decisions: An Introduction to Christian Ethics %:ew
;or.< /bingdon =ress! *010)! ,24
,
>. Stephen! The Ethics of Love in the Human Context %:ew 'elhi< Serials =ublications! ,224)! vii
-
&armon .9 Smith and 9ouis 6. &odges. The Christian and his Decisions, ,,*
4
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics: Otions and Issues %>ichigan< (a.er /cademic! *0@0)! 4-
5
3obin ?ill! Christian Ethics in !ecu"ar #or"d %9ondon< 8 A 8 Clar. International! ,224)! *2
1
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 44
7
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it% %=hiladelphia< 8he 6estminster =ress! *011)! *7
*
moment. /ntinomians reBect all moral rules and for them no norm is accepted! not even the norm
of love
@
! the one and only regulative principle of Christian ethics.
0

(etween the poles of legalism and antinomianism! offering a middle way!
*2
Fletcher posits
his situational absolutism with its one law of love for everything. Situation Ethics! the new#
morality!
**
goes part of the way with natural law by accepting reason as the instrument of moral
Budgment and the Scriptural law with the command $ to love ?od in the neighbor.
*,
3eBecting all
the deontological and teleological ethical theories!
*-
the situationist always wears the
weapon+love! which Fletcher Cuotes Dnly the command of love is categorically good# being
every other decision is hypothetical. 8he situationist has the one law of love %agape)! while many
general rules of wisdom %sophia) are more or less reliable and in accordance with this Fletcher
Cuotes 9egalists ma.e and idol of the sohia! antinomians repudiate it! situationists use it#
*4

.The principles of situationism
/ccording to Fletcher! there are four wor.ing principles of situationism! where the heart of
its e"planation lies< pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism.
*5
.1.!ragmatism< (y this approach! Fletcher means that the right is only the e"pedient
in our way of our behaving#. It is that what wor.s# or satisfies# for loves sa.e. 8he pragmatic
approach disdains abstract! ethical problems and rather it see.s concrete and practical answers.
*1
Spea.ing from a Christian point of view! the norm by which any thought or action to be Budged is
love and a situationist whether a Christian or not! follows a strategy that is pragmatic.
*7
.2."elati#ism< 8here is one absolute and everything is relative to it and to be
situational we can pin another method i.e. relativism.
*@
For situationism! /s the strategy is
pragmatic! the tactics are relativistic.# 8he situationist! writes Fletcher! avoids words li.e never
@
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics,44
0
:. &. ?. 3obinson! The &roundwork of Christian Ethics %>ichigan< 6illiam (. Eerdmans publishing company!
*07*)! ,4@
*2
:. &. ?. 3obinson! The &roundwork of Christian Ethics, ,47
**
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%, -*
*,
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%, ,1
*-
>. Stephen! The Ethics of Love in the Human Context! @
*4
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,--
*5
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%, 42
*1
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 45
*7
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,4-
*@
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,4-
,
and perfect and always and complete as he avoids absolutely. Df course! it is impossible to
be absolutely relative# but for Fletcher! there must be an absolute or norm of some .ind if there
is to be any true relativity#
*0
. In Christian situationism! the ultimate criterion is agapic love which
is determinative
,2
and it is not a virtue at all rather it is the one and only regulative principle of
Christian ethics.
,*
..!ositi#ism< =ostivistic position holds that values are derived voluntaristically! not
rationally. / person decides values for oneself! but the thing is no one deduces those values from
nature and this is termed as emotivism as moral values are thought to be e"pressions on ones
feelings rather than prescriptions for ones life. Ethical statements do not see. verification! they
loo. for Bustification. /nd only in the one norm of Christian love do all other moral e"pressions
find their ultimate Bustification.
.$.!ersonalism< Ethics primarily deals with human relations and Situation ethics put
people at the center of concern! not things.
,,
>oral values are not only the person e"pressesE
persons are the ultimate moral values! as ?od created humans in ?ods own image $ ima'o dei.
,-
8here are no inherently good things! only persons are inherently valuable. 8hings are to be used
and people are to be loved#
,4
and it is purely immoral when people are used and things are loved
,5
.
9oving things and using people! the reversal of this is the perversion of morality. /ccording to
Fletcher! considering only persons to have intrinsic value is what Fant meant by treating persons
always never as ends and never as means. So this is the meaning of love< relating everything to the
good of persons! who alone are good as such.
In short! situationism is an ethic with a pragmatic strategy! a relativistic tactic! a positivistic
attitude! and a personalistic value center. It is an ethic with one absolute to which everything else is
relative and which is directed toward the pragmatic end of doing good to persons.
,1
*0
:. &. ?. 3obinson! The &roundwork of Christian Ethics,,4@
,2
3obin ?ill! Christian Ethics in !ecu"ar #or"d, *2
,*
:. &. ?. 3obinson! The &roundwork of Christian Ethics, ,4@
,,
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,52
,-
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,5*
,4
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics,
,5
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,5*
,1
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 41
-
$.The propositions in %letcher&s Situational Ethics
8he situational position in Fletchers ethics can be e"plained by si" basic propositions.
Each proposition! which is fundamental to Christian conscience!
,7
is an elaboration of what it
means to live situationally with only the one absolute norm of love! the constitutive principle of
situationism.
,@
4.1.'nl( one thing is intrinsicall( good) namel( love * nothing else at all
,0

8his proposition points to the nature of value!
-2
as the roc.+bottom of all ethics is whether
value# is inherent or contingent.
-*
Fletcher follows Scotus and Dc.ham in the >iddle /ges and
'escartes in modern times!
-,
who say that something is good because ?od wills it so. :othing is
worth anything in and of itself
--
and it is good only if it helps persons and bad if hurts persons. :o
act in itself has intrinsic value and it gains its value when it relates to persons. /part from helping
or hurting persons! all ethical acts are meaningless. /ll value! worth! goodness! and rightness are
predicates! not real things in themselves. ?od is goodness and love and all other persons merely
have or do good. 8o Fletcher! 9ove is an attitude! not an attribute. 9ove is something that persons
give and something that persons should receive! because persons only has intrinsic value. In fact!
according to Fletcher! the image of ?od in humans is not reason! but love. 9ove and personhood
constitute man.inds characteristic similar to ?od. 8his is why the only human thing with intrinsic
value is love and it ma.es humans li.e ?od.
-4
8he other side of this proposition that only love is inherently good is that only malevolence
is intrinsically evil. &owever for Fletcher! the opposite of love is not hate! but malice!
-5
which is
really a perverted form of love! but rather indifference. 6hile hate treats the other as at least thou
or person! indifference treats others as inanimate obBects. 6hatever one must do for loves sa.e is
good! for only love is intrinsically good and whatever is the loving thing to do in a given situation
,7
Joseph Fletcher! $ora" (esonsi)i"it%: !ituation Ethics at #ork %9ondon< SC> =ress! *017)! *-
,@
&armon .9 Smith and 9ouis 6. &odges. The Christian and his Decisions, ,24
,0
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,57
-2
Joseph Fletcher! $ora" (esonsi)i"it%: !ituation Ethics at #ork, *-
-*
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,57
-,
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,57
--
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,50
-4
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 47
-5
&arvey Co"! %ed). The !ituation Ethics De)ate %=hiladelphia< 8he 6estminster =ress! *05,)!*-2
4
is the right thing to do.
-1
In short! "ove is the end of law in situationism as it does respect persons+
the uniCue and the individual unconditionally.
-7
$.2.The ruling norm of +hristian is lo#e) nothing else
,
(y reducing all values to love!
-0
this proposition points 6e follow law! if at all! for loves
sa.e#. Dne does not follow love for the laws sa.eE one follows the law only for loves sa.e.
8raditionally! it is believed that love and law are identical! but it is not. Sometimes both these
conflicts and it is the Christian obligation to .eep love over the law. It is not the love of law but the
law of love which one ought to follow.
42
/ccording to Fletcher! Jesus summed up the >osaic 9aw and the 8en Commandments in
one word+ love. Indeed! there is no one of the commandments which may not be bro.en in some
situation for loves sa.e. 8here are no universal laws e"cept love and every other law is brea.able
by love. Christian love is a giving one which is neither romantic nor friendship! but it is a
sacrificial love.
4*
$..Lo#e and -ustice are the same. for -ustice is lo#e distri/uted) nothing
else
$2
/ccording to this proposition! 9ove and Bustice are identical and the same eCuates both.
4-
9ove does more than ta.e Bustice into accountE love becomes inBustice into account. Justice means
to give others their due! and love is their due and hence Bustice is love distributed.
44
Fletcher Cuotes
=aul! Dwe no man %sic) anything e"cept to love#. Christian ethics welcomes law and order for
loves sa.e and even foresees the need at times for a loving use of force to protect the innocent.
Since the word love in most languages is romanticiGed and sentimentaliGed and personaliGed out
of all relation to agape! we can even consider of using the term Bustice instead of love. Justice is
-1
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 47
-7
&armon .9 Smith and 9ouis 6. &odges. The Christian and his Decisions, ,21
-@
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,10
-0
Joseph Fletcher! $ora" (esonsi)i"it%: !ituation Ethics at #ork,*-
42
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 47
4*
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 4@
4,
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,@7
4-
Joseph Fletcher! $ora" (esonsi)i"it%: !ituation Ethics at #ork,*-
44
&arvey Co"! %ed). The !ituation Ethics De)ate, *-*
5
love calculating comple" pluralistic sitations! using its head! distributing its services and concern.
Justice is nothing but! love facing the social and circumstantial dimensions of love and history.
45
$.$.Lo#e 0ills the neigh/or&s good 0hether 0e li1e him/her or not
$2

Fletchers fourth proposition frees love from sentimentality
47
and states that love is an
attitude and not a feeling! and in doing so it stresses the distinctive characteristics of Christian
love! which is not an emotional but an attitudinal ethic.
4@
In eros, desire is the cause of love! while
in a'ae! love is the cause of desire and it is not a reciprocal one. Fletcher adds that! Erotic love is
egoistic! *hi"ic love is mutualistic while A'aic love is altruistic! which is the ruling norm in the
situational ethics.
Fletcher s.etches four interpretations of the command to love ones neighbor as oneself.
First! love your neighbor Bust as much as you love yourself. Second! it may mean to love others in
addition to loving yourself. 8hird it may mean love your neighbor in the way you ought to love
yourself+ rightly and honestly. Fourth! love your neighbor instead of loving yourself. Fletcher
outlines his own understanding of loving ones neighbor as oneself. &e says that! we move from
love of ourselves for our own sa.e! to love of our neighbor for our own sa.e! to love of our
neighbor for the neighbors sa.e and to love ourselves for the neighbors sa.e. Fletcher opines that
the last is the highest and the best for it is the right .ind of self+love! namely the love of oneself for
the sa.e of loving others. Fletcher again! on love! comments that! all love is self+love and is one
with three important obBects+?od! neighbor and the self. If we love ourselves for our own sa.e!
that is wrong. If we love ourselves for ?ods sa.e! then that is right. For to love ?od and the
neighbor is to love oneself in right wayHE to love ones self in the right way is to love ?od and
ones neighbors.#
40
$.3.'nl( the end -ustifies the means) nothing else
34
45
Joseph Fletcher! $ora" (esonsi)i"it%: !ituation Ethics at #ork,7@
41
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,*2-
47
Joseph Fletcher! $ora" (esonsi)i"it%: !ituation Ethics at #ork, *-
4@
&arvey Co"! %ed). The !ituation Ethics De)ate! *-*
40
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 52
52
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,*,2
1
8his teleological proposition states the relation between means and ends
5*
and asserts there
are no intrinsically good acts e"cept the act of love. 8he only thing that can Bustify an act is if it is
done following ends or purposes. 8his is not to say that any end Bustifies any means! but only that a
"ovin' end Bustifies any means. 8he means cannot Bustify themselves! only ends Bustify means. 8he
meaning of an act comes from its purpose or end and the only Bustifiable purpose for ethical acts is
the a'aic love. /ny means which is sought for its own sa.e is wrong! in fact! all ends are only
means to higher ends! until one arrives at last at the ultimate end of love itself.
5,
$.2.Lo#e&s decisions are made situationall(. not prescripti#el(
3
8he final e"pository postulate of situation ethics! which Joseph Fuchs called the ethics of
the moment!
54
strongly mar.s the difference between the basic ethical principle of the love norm
and the application of that principle in a given circumstance. 8he love principle is a universal but
formal norm and validates every Budgment within its own conte"t
55
. It does not prescribe in
advance what specific courses of action will be loving and the for the precise prescription of love!
one will have to wait until heIshe is in the situation. It is free from specific pre+definition and it
operates apart from a system of pretailored and prefabricated moral rules. It functions
circumstantially and prescriptive principles or Fantian ariori rules are not regarded by situation
and situation ethics is an aosteriori approach.
51
3.E#aluation of the Situation Ethics
3.1.Ad#antages of the situational position
It is a normative position< First it should be commended Fletchers attempt to approach ethics in
a normative way. Fletchers second proposition states that the ruling norm of Christian decision is
love and nothing else. Fletcher was trying to e"plain and elaborate this one absolute and it will be
too unfair if we put Fletcher as totally an antinomian. Fletcher clearly distinguishes between
formal principles such as act as lovingly as possible#! substantial principles such as the good
which should be done in utility# and normative principles such as loving concern for our
5*
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,*-
5,
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 52
5-
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,*-4
54
>. Stephen! The Ethics of Love in the Human Context! 1
55
Joseph Fletcher! !ituation Ethics: The New $ora"it%,*-
51
>. Stephen! The Ethics of Love in the Human Context! @
7
neighbors#. Fletcher asserts that there are no universals with substantive content and that the love
principle! he calls as the ruling norm of Christian ethics# is only formally universal.
It is absolute < Fletchers view is not only normative! but it is absolute also. 8here is one
unbrea.able law! the law of love. Even though Fletcher deliberately avoids words such as never
and always with regard to every other norm! he emphasiGes that there are no e"ceptions to the
love norm. Dnly love and nothing else Bustifies what one does.
It resolves the issue of conflicting norms < Situationism doesnt involve in a complicated series
of e"ceptions to norms! nor it presents a heap of moral values and it never faced the dilemma of
having two absolute or universal norms in conflict! since it does not have two absolute norms.
8here is one absolute norm! "ove! no more and no less.
It gives due value to differing circumstances < /nother merit of situationism is its emphasis in
the fact that the conte"t of an ethical decision has a bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the
act.
It stresses love and the value of persons < (oth in the Christian and non+Christian perspectives!
the stress on agapic love as the ruling norm is a commendable one. Seldom do strong voices arise
in defense of selfish love and from the Christian point of love! love is the absolute moral character
of ?od. Jesus summariGed the whole of the Dld 8estament in the one word "ove and when all else
fades! love abides forever.
57
Fletcher stresses on loving others for the fact that they are to be treated
as persons in the image of ?od and not as mere obBects.
3.2.The Inade5uacies of Situationism
From a moralist view point in general and a Christian perspective in general! not everything
in Fletchers situationism is praiseworthy! some inadeCuacies also I want to mention.
One norm is too general< (y its very nature! a single universal norm must be broad and
adaptable! or else it could not be applied to all circumstances. If the absolute love norm is without
concrete content apart from the relative situation! then the specific meaning of love is relative and
not absolute. Fletcher admits that the content of love varies from situation to situation and
therefore the command! 9ove in all cases# needs a specific thing to do in all cases to be loved.
57
:orman 9. ?eisler! Christian Ethics, 51
@
6hen Fletcher says 'o the loving thing#! how one can define the acts of "ovin' and his moral law
is too general to be applied here. Fletcher admits that situations are relative and even radically
different. If the meaning of love is dependent on circumstances! then the significance of love is
relative to the situation and therefore not absolute. Christian morality! therefore! cannot be reduced
to a legalistic set of rules applicable to every person in all situations.
5@
The situation does not determine the meaning of love < 8he meaning of the love norm is not
completely determined by the particulars of the situation! but is merely conditioned by them. 8he
situation would be determining the norm rather than the norm being determinative for the situation.
Fletcher doesnt claims that the situation completely determines what the norm means and he says
only that what love will mean in advance of the situation cannot be .nown with any e"istential
particularity#E it can be .nown only in general.
The possibility of many universal norms < Situationism fails to avail the possibility for having
many universal norms and all the reasons seem not definitive. Fletcher argues that the many norm
position would be legalistic and it all depends on what the norms are! how they are related to each
other! and how they are applied to life whether or not the view is legalistic. Fletcher adds there is
no other way to resolve the conflict of norms unless there is one absolute norm to which all other
norms are only relative. Finally Fletcher sees no way to derive universal norms from a universal
norm. /part from whether there really are universal norms! Fletcher does not eliminate the
possibility that there are such. It can be noted in this point that! Fletcher doesnt prove that there is
only one universal norm since he doesnt prove that it is possible that there may be many
universal norms. 8he possibility of there being many universal norms should not be given up until
either it is shown to be logically impossible! or no universal norm other than love is ever found.
A different universal norm is possible < It is possible not only that there are many universal
norms in contrast to Fletchers single norm! but also it is possible to opt for a different single norm
than the love norm Fletcher uses. 8he problem of one+norm ethic is there are many ethical norms
which claim obedience and which one we should be given the special position of being absolute
and unbrea.ableJ
5@
&arvey Co"! %ed). The !ituation Ethics De)ate! *--
0
letcher is really a utilitarian< /s the love ethic seriously searches for a social policy! it must
form a coalition with utilitarianism#.
50
Fletcher admits that his view is utilitarian and situationism
is not really a one+norm absolutism! but a form of generalism. Fletcher believes in the greatest love
for the people! but what is good for many may rob the minority of rights. In the coalition! a'ae
replaces the pleasure principleE the hedonistic calculus becomes the a'aeic calculus.
12
/dding to
this! a good end does not ma.e and act good and no amount of good intentions can ma.e an evil
act good. (eing Bust in love! one must be multidirectional and with a foresight it must borrow the
utilitarian principle and try to bring the greatest good to the greatest number of humans.
2.+onclusion
Joseph Fletchers ethical perspective is an alternative approach from the Christian
perspective and it has much relevance in the Indian conte"t. It is fitting to the todays ecclesial
conte"t as it can be applied meaningfully to the issues of the persons and communities al+through.
8he normative principles are strong in the conte"t of today! but what is not strong and adeCuate is
an appropriate evaluative approach to deal with those! who are victims of moral crises with the
Christian principle of love and mercy. In the conte"t where people loo. for guidance in their crises!
I thin. Fletchers agapeic approach can best serve to bring good. 8hough Fletchers approach
cannot be applied as a normative principle! it can be used as an evaluative approach as his
approach is more concerned of the particular situation than what is termed as apriori. Fletchers
ethical approach is relevant because of its special character of dealing with the daily human
encounters. It is agapeic as it provides sufficient room to ta.e adeCuate decision in the conte"t. It is
more fle"ible and not rigid. It is sensitive to the issues in the situation where it actually needed. So!
in all means! I conclude! Fletchers aposteriori+agapeic aaproach! as an evaluative approach! is a
fitting Christian response is very much apt for todays life and its various modes.
50
:. &. ?. 3obinson! The &roundwork of Christian Ethics,,4@
12
&arvey Co"! %ed). The !ituation Ethics De)ate, *-7
*2