SITUATION ETHICS

SITUATION ETHICS

            The term ‘situation ethics’ is striking in a number of ways. In the first place, one would want to ask, why ‘situation ethics’? Is it a new ethical world view or another way of looking at age-long ethical issues? The prefix ‘situation’ carries with it the import of examining particular situations. That of viewing every situation as unique. Situation ethics has in its own way tried to offer explanation to ethical issues. It has provided or charted a new course in the perception of ethical problems.

            Situation Ethics, otherwise known as the New Morality, is the ethics which emphasizes the situation as the determining factor in the morality of any action. Situation ethics is largely a reaction and protest against legalistic formalism in ethics, especially in the Christian ethics which holds that certain actions are intrinsically evil actions, and others are intrinsically good irrespective of the circumstantial facts of the situation under examination. What this means is that certain actions are evil wherever and whenever they are performed. This will further mean that there is something inherently bad in the action and the property of badness cannot be abstracted from the act itself since it is its essential essence. But Situation Ethics denies that any action is intrinsically evil. The same action that is bad in one situation can become good in another situation, and vice versa. Situation Ethics, then, does not consist in formalistic observance of law. Rather, morality is the sincerity of one’s response to a situation and the uprightness of one’s intention. An act is therefore good if it is itself good in terms of being right under prevailing circumstantial facts. In other words, the situation and ethical demands of the situation is primary and not any already established rules.

            Situation Ethics admits no moral norms or absolute moral rule, since no moral law is always applicable in all situations. Moral laws are situation specific, and as such, cross-situational application of moral laws is inadmissible. A moral law that is applicable in one situation may not apply in another. Situation Ethics hence discountenances the world view that we have universally binding laws that must guide our actions in all situations. It does not believe in universal moral imperatives or what Kant calls ‘Categorical Imperatives’ like ‘Thou shall not kill.’ The injunction in Situation Ethics would be, ‘Thou shall not kill if the situation demands it.’

            The main figure in Situation Ethics is Joseph Fletcher, an American Moralist. He is the chief exponent of ‘Situation Ethics’ and his work, titled, Situation Ethics, published in 1966, sparked off this heated debate. According to Fletcher, every situation is unique. Consequently, the same kind of action cannot remain morally the same in all situations. Whether an action is to be considered good or bad depends on the situation in which it is performed.  Goodness or badness is not something that can be found inherent in certain actions as properties of such actions. They are not properties inherent in actions, but predicates, and whether an action is to be predicated with the term ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depends on the situation in which it is performed.

            One of the examples given by Fletcher is that of a woman who committed adultery with a prison warder in order to secure her freedom to re-join her family. Without the act of adultery, it would have been impossible for her to re-join her family. With this example, while traditional Christian ethics would have no hesitation in condemning it as adultery, an intrinsically evil action which no situation can justify, situation ethics would evaluate the intention of the woman, and hence, approve the action as good in view of the situation in which it is performed. The situation makes it a good action and hence, justifies the action.

            Moral judgement according to situation ethics is always a posteriori and never a priori. Moreover, while tradition Christian ethics admits several absolute moral norms, situation ethics maintains that all moral norms are relative, except one, namely, no moral norm or law is absolute, no moral law is always applicable in all situations. The only moral law which is absolute and applicable in all situations is the Law of Love. Love is the only absolute law in ethics. But the expression or application of love differs from one situation to another. Love is the only thing which is intrinsically good, and any action that is motivated by love in any situation is a good action. Justice, Fletcher says, is identical with Love; the two are inseparable. There can be no love without justice, for justice is love distributed to others. Fletcher says situation ethics is not a system but a method of arriving at moral decisions. According to Fletcher, there are three (3) approaches to moral decision making, namely;

1.      Legalism: Legalism sees moral rules and principles not as guides but absolute norms that must be obeyed at all cost and in all situations. Legalism looks at the letter of the law and insists in its observance while ignoring the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is therefore given dominance. But as St. Paul says, the letter kills while the spirit saves. Legalism destroys rather than saves; it hurts rather than helps. It is unrealistic and destructive.

2.      Antinormianism: Antinormianism is a lawless, principless approach to decision making. It rejects all moral laws and principles and insists that man is free to take any decision that he deems fit in any situation. An example is Jean-Paul Sartre, who rejects universal laws and advocates freedom as man’s only norm of action.

Both legalism and antinormianism are extremes and unrealistic.

3.      Situationism: Situationism accepts that there are universal moral principles. But it sees them only as guides in one’s decision making. It does not see them as directives or as absolute laws which must be obeyed at all cost.

Four working principles of Situation Ethics:

            According to Fletcher, there are four (4) working principles of situation ethics, namely:

1.      Pragmatism: Situation Ethics is pragmatic in the sense that it insists on the workability of any principle in practice. Any principle which turns to be unrealistic and impracticable in practice is rejected. It is utilitarian in the sense that it insists on the beneficial consequences of an action. Any principle that produces disastrous consequences is to be rejected.

2.      Relativism: Situation Ethics is relativistic. It maintains that moral propriety or moral impropriety is relative; it all depends on the situation. What is good in one situation can become bad in another situation, and vice versa. There is no intrinsically good or bad action; the situation in question determines the goodness or badness of the action.

3.      Positivism: Situation Ethics is positivistic, a posteriori and empirical. It adopts the empirical approach to moral decision making, and rejects the metaphysical a priori approach.

4.      Personalism: Situation Ethics is personalistic in the sense that it is preoccupied with the well-being of the human person.  It maintains that morality is meant for the development and growth of the human person. Moral laws and principles are meant to help the human person, and not to destroy him or her. Morality is meant for the human person and not vice versa. The human person is more important than the moral principles.

On the whole, situation ethics sees the traditional concept of human nature as outdated and wishes it to be replaced with the concept of the existent person. To the situation ethicist, as said earlier, there is nothing like absolute morality. Rather, we have relative and subjective morality. The important point is to note the presence of human value which differs from person to person and which is bound to affect our decisions in particular situations. What situation ethics demands is that, in every situation, the agent should be able to produce the objective morality of the situation as the jailed woman did. In a situation where a girl and a boy that are not related are made to stay together for a long time, situation ethics may see it as moral if they copulate, but the tradition Christian ethics would frown at an act of this nature because fornication is sinful irrespective of the situation or reason.