Explain a relativistic theory of ethics (25).
One relativistic theory of ethics is situationism. Situationism (also known as situation ethics) was devised by Joseph Fletcher, who was strongly against absolutist theories for instance; legalism and also disliked how religions were taught implying there were some rules that could never be broken, as he thought these rules are too demanding and restrictive. He then created this theory of situation ethics which is seen as the ‘mid way’ because it lies between antinomianism and legalism. Antinomianism is very anti law whilst legalism emphasises the important of law. However, situationism lies between the two as Fletcher was very enthused by making a decision on individual situations.
Situation ethics maintains that it’s the consequences of actions which determine whether an action is right or wrong, so it is very much a consequentialist position.
Situationists enter each decision making situation with ethical maxims of their community and culture, each they treat with respect. Fletcher proposed that not only the situation guides an individual on what they should do but also the principle of agape (love). In Fletcher’s book he suggests that Christians should make the right choices without blindly following rules but rather by thinking for themselves. Decisions should be made on the sole basis of one rule – agape. Such love involves doing the best thing possible for the other party involved. So maxims could be ignored if they don’t serve agape, for example if a priest is presented by a young lady who is having underage promiscuous sex, the right thing to do would be to insist the young lady uses contraception. This is because the most loving thing to do for the other person is to ensure she is safe. For the situationist the rule of agape is always right.