I am writing a paper part of which will follow, after which is my problem...(BTW, this is very draft!)
Situation ethics is a theory of ethics wherein “ethical judgments must be made within the context of the entirety of the situation and that all normative features of a situation must be viewed as a whole.†There is no fundamental law or precept that can be applied to each situation. “However, situation ethics does hold that there are some fixed norms that can be applied on a universal basis.†The morality of certain actions must be viewed “within the context of the entire situation,†rather than taking a view from one specific instance and applying it to a separate situation. Any perceived universal applications must be “understood appropriately within the particulars of the situation.â€
Joseph Fletcher, a former Episcopalian priest, popularized situation ethics by defining the “fixed norm†in every ethical decision to imbue the properties of agape love. “Agape,†meaning “love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity,†being “universal, unchanging and unconditional…for all people.†Fletcher held six fundamental principles for his theory, as follows:
1.“Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely love: nothing else at all.
2.The ruling norm of Christian decision is love: nothing else.
3.Love and Justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else†…Justice being defined as “Christian love using its head, calculating its duties, obligations, opportunities, resources…Justice is love coping with situations where distribution is called for.
4.[L]ove wills the neighbour’s [sic] good, whether we like him or not.
5.Only the end justifies the means, nothing else.
6.[L]ove’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively.â€
Fletcher wrote in “Attitudes toward Suicide†that “no ‘law’ of conduct is always obliging; what we ought to do is whatever maximizes human well-being…When suicide helps human beings it is right…we have a right to do it, [unless it impinges on] the well-being of others. What makes it right is human need. Human rights…are not intrinsically valid. It is need that validates rights, not the other way around.â€
THE PROBLEM: The way I see it is that Fletcher is describing utility or egoism, not true situationism. The experts state that Fletcher's version of situation ethics is consequential but I think it is nonconsequential as nonconsequential does not exclude consequences but bases ethical decisions on other things besides, whereas consequential is just that. Here is my thought:
What do you think?Another problem with Fletcher’s version of situation ethics is that if it were true that the end justifies the means, then no situation would matter. However, at that point, you would no longer be a situationist but an egoist or utilitarian. Love is, by definition, the catalyst for decision-making, not the decision itself. If it were true that love is suicide, then each person who chose to love would be dead by his own hand. Suicide is the end and love is the reason for the action, but suicide is not the reason for love. Therefore, the end does not justify the means, but quite the reverse.
Edit: After thinking even more, it is really leaning toward ethical relativism based on the case by case take on it, except for the fact that universal norms can be applied...but even then, it has to be taken in on a case by case basis, which means that the universal norm taken into consideration is not a decisive factor. In other words, a part of a whole is not the whole, so a decision cannot be made on a part but the whole.
