Situation ethics would argue that one of its key strengths is its flexibility; it allows for practical decisions to be made where rule-based ethical systems follow their own absolute commandments. It takes the circumstances into account where they ignore them, prescribing some actions 'whatever the circumstances.'
Opponents would say that doing something like murdering Hitler brings you down to his level, and point out that it is against our consciences. However the phrase 'bringing you down to the same level' is an essentially blank one, which disguises the fact that most people just find killing uncomfortable. 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. Situation ethics is not based on the idea of a conscience, and as it says that we should make love rather than divine revelation or intuition the basis of our action, our gut reactions aren't seen as being the best moral guides.
Its advocates 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 resultant 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. This allows us to make more personal decisions on actions to be taken because you can choose to do the most loving thing in your opinion.
Outline the main weaknesses of situation ethics. To what extent do these undermine the theory?
Situation Ethics has been criticised in a number of ways.
For example, in order to 'do the most loving thing' in every situation one must look to the long-term consequences of one's actions in the present moment. We do not know if our actions will lead to heartache or joy but the promotion of love for the Situationist requires us to do so if we are to avoid acting selfishly as we cannot always tell what the results of our actions shall be e.g. We do not know if a 14 year old girl should have an abortion because it is believed she will not be a responsible mother (based on her present condition) or whether she will embrace her responsibility and be a great mother to her child (time will only tell).
It is also possible to act selfishly, in the name of love without being aware of it. There is a need to consider Fletcher's claim that actions have no intrinsic moral value. Do murder, lying, cheating and stealing become 'good acts' just because someone commits them in the name of love? There seems to be confusion between what is morally good and what is morally right (the act itself - E.g. It may be morally good for me to steal food to feed a starving child, but does that then make stealing morally right?).
Finally, by what criteria is the Situationist able to make moral decisions? If there are no Ultimate ethical principles, then the Situationist is making subjective decisions based potentially on personal feelings.
“An evil like pain, death or mutilation is, in itself, pre-moral or non-moral, and should never be described as 'moral'. It is the act as a whole which is right or wrong, and it is the person, or the person in his or her acting, who is morally good or morally bad. Bernard Hoose
It is often very hard to define what 'love' as a motive means. On one definition, Hitler could have classified his actions as loving, as he certainly saw what he was doing as justifiable. The definition of love can't be too narrow, or else a number of actions, which would properly be described as loving, will not qualify.
It is often very hard for someone to individually judge what is “loving”, as they are bound to see things from their perspective.
A strong argument against is the fact love is de-valued with this argument, situation ethics is fundamentally vague, resting on a very indefinite definition of love, and could in practice be used to justify anything. It takes relativism in the sense of opposing an excess of absolute rules to the extreme of relativism in the sense of 'anything goes, so long as the motive can be described as "loving".' If the basis of right and wrong is the way actions affect human beings - as situation ethics agrees - then surely we should just consider their consequences, and not some conception of how loving the person in question’s motives were.
I believe that with all these weaknesses it leaves the theory very weak as it can be used to justify anything as it is forcing you to think from quite a selfish point of view.
