Situational Ethics: Joseph Fletcher

Situational Ethics was pioneered by Joseph Fletcher (1905-1991). His work, Situation Ethics, founded the modern
situational ethics movement. Since then, almost every publication on situational ethics has referred to the model
presented in Fletcher's writings. Fletcher was an Episcopal priest, a member of the Euthanasia Educational Counsel, and
an advocate for Planned Parenthood. He was a supporter of both euthanasia and abortion.

Situational Ethics: Fletcher's Model

Situational Ethics, according to Fletcher's model, states that decision-making should be based upon the circumstances of
a particular situation, and not upon fixed Law. The only absolute is Love. Love should be the motive behind every
decision. As long as Love is your intention, the end justifies the means. Justice is not in the letter of the Law, it is in the
distribution of Love. Fletcher founded his model upon a statement found in the New Testament of the Bible that reads,
"God is Love" (1 John 4:8).

Situational Ethics: The Contradiction

Fletcher's model of Situational Ethics appears reasonable upon a glance, yet given careful consideration, its flaw
becomes apparent. Situational Ethics is based upon "God is Love" in I John 4:8. However, in the very next chapter we
read, "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (I John
5:3). While Fletcher holds that any commandment may be broken in good conscience if Love is one's intention, the Bible
states that the keeping of God's commandments is loving God. To break any commandment, regardless of your
intentions, is to not love God. Therefore, logic holds that the breaking of the commandment was not done in Love.

Situational Ethics: Man's Sin Nature

Situational Ethics is supposedly based upon the Bible, yet it contradicts the Bible. Furthermore, there are philosophical
considerations that are left unresolved. Can humans, flawed beings, be trusted to act in Love? Paul the Apostle, inspired
by the Holy Spirit, wrote to the Galatians: "[the Law] was added because of transgressions…" (Galatians 3:19). This
passage refers to Levitical Law that was "fulfilled" by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross. However, ethical
regulations continue to appear in the Bible's New Testament. Perhaps they share the same purpose as Levitical Law, in
that they were given because of our tendency to sin against God. Even believers in Christ, saved by grace, retain their
sinful nature in this world.

Situational Ethics: God's Word

Situational Ethics, though it may be well meaning, is wrong. It is best not to transgress God's Law under any
circumstance, regardless of your motive. God knows best and instituted His Law for a purpose. He has not given
permission to any man to transgress His Law. If you will suffer because of keeping His Law, rejoice and be exceedingly
glad, for so the Prophets suffered before you, and great is your reward in Heaven. If you can save a loved one from
suffering by breaking God's Law, do not. For you are taking away their opportunity to persevere and receive blessings
from God. Furthermore, you are breaking God's Law, bringing His displeasure upon yourself. To break God's eternal Law
for a temporal concern is to focus upon things of this world and to ignore eternity.

Natural Law

The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core
claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science
aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some
sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world. While being logically
independent of natural law legal theory, the two theories intersect. However, the majority of the article will focus on
natural law legal theory.

According to natural law legal theory, the authority of legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from
considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards. There are a number of different kinds of natural
law legal theories, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of
legal norms. The conceptual jurisprudence of John Austin provides a set of necessary and sufficient conditions for the
existence of law that distinguishes law from non-law in every possible world. Classical natural law theory such as the
theory of Thomas Aquinas focuses on the overlap between natural law moral and legal theories. Similarly, the neo-
naturalism of John Finnis is a development of classical natural law theory. In contrast, the procedural naturalism of Lon
L. Fuller is a rejection of the conceptual naturalist idea that there are necessary substantive moral constraints on the
content of law. Lastly, Ronald Dworkin’s theory is a response and critique of legal positivism. All of these theories
subscribe to one or more basic tenets of natural law legal theory and are important to its development and influence.