Situation Ethics, is a  that was developed by . It basically says that sometimes other moral principles can be overruled in some situations if love is the final consequence of an action. "Love is the ultimate law". Situation ethics underlines the importance of the individual in making moral decisions. The general understanding towards situation ethics has been taken up by the likes of Tillich, Fletcher and Bultman. Bultman believed that jesus didn't work to any ethical theory and that he had no ethics. Tillich wrote that 'the law is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law' meaning that the moral principle is based on christian love and that it should be applied to real life situations. 

Joseph Fletcher developed the idea of making a moral decision for a particular situation. He wrote the book 'Situation Ethics' in 1996 explaining his theory. He stated that it was better that a person made a decision on what moral course of action they should follow rather than follow a set of unwritten rules they hardly know anything about. He believed that God doesn't want us to follow and conform to rules like robots as we are given the decision to decide what's best and what action has the best outcome which is in some ways more demanding for the person as this will make us stronger emotionally and spiritually closer to God than any conformist could ever be. 

Fletcher has some basic principles that are the basis of his beliefs. He says that love alone is intrinsically good and that it should be the sole guide of more decisions and actions, which is the opposite of Utilitarianism. He also says that love and justice are the same as justice is love distributed to the community and nothing else. Sometimes people think of love and justice and opposites and Brunner held the opinion that 'love must be between two people whereas justice exists in a group of people.' Fletcher uses this statement to back up his idea that Justice is love working out its problems. An example of this is that people can say they have nothing against Black people but they can deny them simple justice but then that would not be following the guideline of ‘love thy neighbor.’  Overall, Fletcher feels that the best moral decision is made when love, not law is applied to a situation.

Join now!

Joseph Fletcher puts Situation Ethics into two categories: Fundamental principles and Working Principles.

The four working principles are: Pragmatism which means the proposed course of action must work and work towards the end which is love. Relativism meaning there are no absolute fixed rules that must be obeyed, except love.

Positivism which means that situation Ethics depends on Christians freely choosing faith that God is love and Personalism which means the situationist puts people first, not the law.

There are six fundamental principles of Situation Ethics. The first is that “love is intrinsically good, namely love, nothing else ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

3/5 This first essay is clearly expressed and, at first, gets the main points about situation ethics mostly correct. It is to be credited for showing knowledge of various thinkers sympathetic to situation ethics. Attempt is made to evaluate situation ethics at significant length. These evaluations are mostly lucidly expressed, though the confusion of the thoughts makes them difficult to understand sometimes. Unfortunately the evaluations of situation ethics are almost all hopelessly mistaken and undermine the sense that the student really understands the theory. The second question is less inaccurate than the previous one, because it relies heavily on quoted material from other critics. Thus it also lacks individual evaluation from the student. This is ironic as the first question would have been more suited to mere quotes and little exposition, whereas this answer requires more evaluation. There is an attempt to offer original views in the conclusion, though these points are largely detached (indeed, at odds with) the claims made in the rest of the argument. Unfortunately, the evaluation that is offered in this conclusion is pretty much nonsense- either irrelevant or internally contradictory.