The Six fundamental propositions are:
-
One thing is intrinsically good and that is love (αγαπε)
-
Αγαπε is the ruling norm of Christian decision making
- Love and Justice are the same for justice is love distributed
- Love wills the neighbours good, whether we like him or not
- Only the end justifies the means, nothing else
- Love decision are made situationally
The theory serves many basic and simple ideas that ideally reflects Christian ethics. Αγαπε is compatible with the gospel of Jesus in that there is only one rule, “Love thy neighbour”. Therefore hinting the argued of Situation Ethics, in Christianity love, is always morally prior to every other principle and must be determinative factor in all moral decisions. The significance of this is that love is a response to a real, unique individual existing at a particular point in human history, in space and time, and as every individual is unique, no amount of moral laws can be specify exactly what that individual needs in their situation.
But it is important to realise that αγαπε is one type of love, and has little to do with other concepts that are also classified under “love”. Αγαπε is the theme of Corinthians 13,
“love is patied and kind, love is not jealous or boastful…So faith, hope and love abide”
Αγαπε is not a feeling, but is more concerned with reason that wills emotion. It is selfless love cornered and applied to all others, irrespective of who they are or what they have done.
“An agapistic approach (Such as that of Hare) asserts that to promote full use of the Golden Rule it is necessary to rely and take into consideration the interests of others.”
Mitchell
By allowing this idea it makes it a universally applied theory for love is engaged in many cultures all over the world. Thereby making it flexible, practical and easy to understand while still continuing to take into account the complexities of human life. This brings me onto my next point
Situation Ethics enables a rational and emotional response to determine what is right in any given situation. But this weakens the theory as well as strengthening it. The strength can be seen in light of how an agent is no longer restricted by law or rules for, “Situation Ethics present’s humans with a great degree of freedom”. An agent doesn’t have to follow a moral rule if it goes against their deepest sense of love. By breaking away from a law we are left by our own judgment to decide what is right or wrong. This according to Fletcher is always right for in his six fundamental propositions, justice is love distributed, thereby making love and law equal to each other, but as Barlclay put forward, “Negative law isn’t love.”
but can you be assured it’s real love, or true justice, or merely selfishness crept under the banner of αγαπε love? Which is where one weakness of the theory lies, for we expect the agent to be have some reasoning or logic to understand that “what could be believed to be the most loving end”. For by not allowing this expectation we permit these agents to justify actions which some people “would regard as simply wrong” For theoretically αγαπε love, could justify adultery, murder and even genocide in the interest of love. Therefore I find myself siding with Gstz,
“if any action may be good or bad depending on the situation, then sin must be situationally defined. Fletcher cannot reasonable speak of people as sinners for him, good and evil are attributes and not properties. People merely sin, they are not sinful or sinners.”
As Fletcher really taken into consideration the true nature of human beings, the true selfishness and greed, or has he just mastered another ideal theory that veils out of cite the worse side in humans. I find myself agreeing with Higginson who states how people are able to recognise the “dangers of temptation” thereby glad to enforce rules for human being need guidelines, we “need rules to stabilise society”, but as Cunningham stated, “there are no rules that can be applied without exception.” Therefore we left with the sense that rules are need in society, but these exact rules can take out of force and left with exception.
Furthermore has Fletcher taken into consideration that you expect an agent to have some sense of morally correct behaviour, which in some cases, moral reason may demand something that goes against one’s immediate feelings but which in the wider scheme of things might be seen as right, “Love is short sighted and delusive in the eyes if a moral.” For even though Fletcher has a with standing point with Situation Ethics and αγαπε Love, it’s quite apparent that most ethical dilemmas offer an obvious course of action without resorting to Situationalism.
Thus I now shall conclude my final points. I felt that Situation Ethics, is not necessarily a great device for making decision, it still hold some engraved points that are more relevant than what was given credited for. I think that the real weakness lies in that in relating the theory in practice for it doesn’t offer the potential that it does theoretically. We view people in light of their better nature, not their worst,
B. Mitchell, Situation Ethics, Pg 352
W. Barclay, Ethics in a Permissive Society, P80
Gstz, Ignacio L., ‘Is Fletcher situationism Christian?’ Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (3), August 1970,P 273-278