At first glance, you could easily say that Situation Ethics appears to be the fairest and most loving method of tackling moral issues, particularly if you compared Situation Ethics to Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Kant’s deontological approach to moral issues promoted a black and white view of what may be viewed as moral or immoral. He proposed a principle that he thought would apply to all situations, fundamentally stating that a) the act must have the ability to be universalised and b) that you should always treat people as ends and never as a means. Its legalistic manner excludes any allowance for the individualist, illustrating probably its main disadvantage compared to the more considerate and liberal approach of a situationist. In the way that Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that issues surrounding a problem should not be considered, Situation Ethics urges the moralist to take every issue into account. Furthermore, probably the main contrasting aspect of these two moral codes is their consideration for effects or results. Essentially, Situation Ethics is primarily concerned with the possible outcome of an action, in terms of whether it will create the most loving conclusion. Whereas a deontological approach dismisses worries about the possible outcome, stating that it is unnecessary and that the only thing that need be considered is an act’s coherence to a pre-existing moral code.
Situation Ethics would also appeal to Christians, more than Kant’s theory would. Fletcher held that every ethical system requires a faith commitment, rather than Kant’s fixation with deriving principles from reason alone. Fletcher’s opinion that love is the only norm would also fit into a Christian’s beliefs, rather than a theory that states you should act out of a personal sense of what you believe to be right.
Situation Ethics also displays areas that appear to be more successful at tackling moral issues than a teleological approach. The main downfall with utilitarianism, a teleological theory, is similar to the deontological’s, namely, its ability to neglect individualism. Although its simple rule “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” is similar to that of Situation Ethics, it still undervalues the impact of the individual. In the worst case, it can warrant and even encourage the maltreatment of minority groups, whereas, in theory, the situationist would always take the situation into account and so such things would not be permitted. Furthermore, analysing the elementary rule ‘ the greatest happiness . . .’ you are able to recognise the difficulty of calculating ‘happiness’. Although Bentham, one of the main contributors to the development of utilitarianism, created a Hedonic Calculus, stating how to ‘measure’ happiness, ambiguity would still always arise. Moreover, one should take into consideration the notion of this theory that happiness is the main decisive factor in making moral decisions. Surely love would appear to be a more morally correct method of measuring whether an act is moral or immoral, especially considering that a pre-occupation with pleasure could possibly lead to hedonism.
Taking all of this into account however, there are many criticisms of Situation Ethics in the light of other moral theories. Although it could, in theory, be applied to everyday life, Situation Ethics would present difficulties if it were to be applied on a larger scale, especially in society and law. Civilisation needs a basic set of moral objectives or goals to which it can strive, so, although deontological theories are often thought to be restrictive and too clear-cut, this kind of approach is necessary for a society to function morally. Situation Ethics would urge people to interpret situations according to their own point of view, but the danger arises because some people may claim to act ‘in the name of love’ whilst really acting from selfish motives. So essentially, while Situation Ethics’ main advantage is its ability to consider the individual situation, it is simultaneously its main downfall because it excludes any kind of universal knowledge that can be applied to particular situations. Fletcher may have overestimated human rationality, in fact, our very involvement in a situation, our inability to stand outside it, may cloud our analysis of it.
Furthermore, Kant’s Categorical Imperative produces a structured and consistent theory, precisely explaining what aspects need to be taken into consideration, but Fletcher’s theory does not clearly mark the boundaries for a ‘situation’. Real situations usually involve more than the emotions of the principal actors in the immediate drama.
Although there are problems with utilitarianism’s motive of ‘happiness’ alone, there are also problems with Situation Ethics love theory. In the same way that people argue ‘how can the utilitarian be assured that they are acting sensitively and perceptively’, what criteria does the situationist have to know that they are acting in a moral fashion; there are some actions that do not necessarily become good just because they are done from a loving motive.
In conclusion, I believe that there are many instances where Situation Ethics would prove itself to be the fairest and most loving way of approaching ethical issues, however, I also understand that this would only be in certain circumstances. In my opinion, Situation Ethics would only be appropriate for solving personal moral decisions. In the case of society and law, there is a necessity for rules, to avoid chaos amongst the wider population, so therefore, I would hold that a deontological approach would be more suitable for a wider scale. I n response to the original question then, I would have to reply that Situation ethics is not always the best method of solving moral problems, but it can be the most loving on a smaller scale.
