• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Defenders of situation ethics would argue that one of its key strengths is its flexibility; it allows for pragmatic decisions to be made where rule-based ethical systems follow their own absolute commandments.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

(ii) How far do the weaknesses lead to a rejection of the theory? 9 marks Defenders of situation ethics would argue that one of its key strengths is its flexibility; it allows for pragmatic decisions to be made where rule-based ethical systems follow their own absolute commandments. It takes the circumstances into account where they ignore them, disallowing some actions 'whatever the circumstances.' The frequent attempts to sidestep them are a tacit acknowledgment that this is the case, and can lead to some very confused situations. For example, the removal of the Fallopian tube, with its indirect result of the death of a foetus which would otherwise cause the mother's death, is ...read more.

Middle

This is a gut reaction, not in itself a reason for saying that killing is automatically wrong any more than the fact that some people are instinctively racist shows that racism is right. Its supporters would also claim that situation ethics focuses on humans rather than what amounts to a worship of laws and abstract principles. These only have ultimate value to the extent that they help people. The argument is that the only basis for something being morally good can be the resulting feelings of human beings, and situationalists like Joseph Fletcher have argued that because Christianity's God is a personal one, its moral approach should be centred around human beings too. ...read more.

Conclusion

Also, it is often very hard for someone to individually judge what is loving, as they are bound to see things from their perspective. Some selfishness can easily creep in with no firm rules, and love can also lead to favouritism. But a strong argument against situation ethics is that it tends to assume that just because an act is well motivated, it is automatically right. This is clearly not the case. Just because you wouldn't blame someone who accidentally killed two kids while trying to save his neighbour's dog, doesn't mean that his action was, with hindsight, objectively right. It could be argued that the motives did not love. ?? ?? ?? ?? Kerrie Freeman ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3 star(s)

3/5

The essay lands a couple of good points in favour of situation ethics. Nevertheless, it is held back by the absence of a clear conclusion, and indeed, argument in general, that addresses the question. Given the question, a little more focus on the weaknesses of the approach would be good here, even if it is ultimately argued that they do not overcome its strengths. While good points are made pro and con situation ethics more consideration is needed in terms of weighing these up, rather than just listing them.

Marked by teacher David Moss 31/03/2012

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Give an account of Kant's ethics

    3 star(s)

    To make a rule universal one must be able to put themselves into the positions of others meaning that the person who is about to carry out a certain act must not do so unless he/she is certain that all others in the same situation should carry out that specific act in the same manner.

  2. The Cosmological Argument

    What distinguishes the Kalam cosmological argument from other forms of cosmological argument is that it rests on the idea that the universe has a beginning in time. Modal forms of the cosmological argument are consistent with the universe having an infinite past.

  1. Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of ...

    if the past is infinite, there is no beginning to start from. All in all, we are left without reason to think that the infinity premises of these arguments are true. We also have no reason to think they are false, so for all we know the second way is

  2. Analyze the distinctive features of the Ontological Argument

    "It is necessary to assume something which is necessary of itself, and has no cause of its necessity outside itself but rather is the cause of necessity in other things. And this all men call God." Quoted Aquinas. Descartes composed a number of Ontological arguments that differed from Anselm's.

  1. "All Religious Language is meaningless"

    Aquinas himself admitted that 'we know that God is, but not what God is'. So to the atheist or agnostic there is still difficulty in talking meaningfully about God, or reaching common ground when discussing religious beliefs. If then straight language fails, perhaps we can use symbol.

  2. Evaluate the claim that the soul is distinct from the body:

    Bertrand Russell agreed and gave the examples of football to illustrate this point. He suggested that football couldn?t exists without footballers and in turn, the colour red, could not exist without red objects. As such, the soul cannot exist without a body to function in.

  1. Critically assess the claim that the conscience is the voice of reason (35)

    Fromm believed that the society and authority around us from a young age, influences man to believe that if society accepts/denies something then this is likely to be right/wrong; this is the authoritarian conscience. Like Piaget, Fromm believed that this influence of beliefs and morals will be internalised over time.

  2. Critically assess the claim that religious language is meaningless.

    Is talk about God really meaningless? Ayer himself admitted that some historical statements are meaningful even though they are not always verifiable e.g. Christopher Columbus landed in America in 1492. This implies that you don?t have to be able to verify or prove scientifically that a god exists to be able to talk meaningfully about such a being.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work