Two teleological theories are utilitarianism, which values actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people, and situation ethics, which values actions that produce the most love-filled result. Joseph Fletcher was the most eloquent spokesperson for the situationist approach to Christian ethics. The central affirmation is his ‘nonsystem,’ as he called it, is that the only ethical absolute is love. “There is only one thing that is always good and right, intrinsically good regardless of context,” says Fletcher, “and that one thing is love”. He said “when we say that love is always good, what we mean is that whatever is loving in any particular situation is good”. Fletcher believes that the only universal requirement is the commandment to love. All other so-called commandments are at most only maxims, never infallible rules. He insists, “For the situationist there are no rules, none at all.”
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.
As we can see, love is a key concept in Christian ethics, where people must love their neighbours as they do themselves. In situation ethics, love is particularly important, wherein it forms the central rule by which the value of moral behaviour is assessed- what is the most loving things to do? The kind of love here is agape love, meaning unconditional love which is not dependant on any return and is very different from the love of family. It is therefore concerned with the actions that produce the most compassionate consequences (making it a teleological Christian ethic), for example the parable of the Good Samaritan. Compassion cannot always be achieved by following the Law. For example, euthanasia is illegal in Britain; however, if the terminally ill patient’s quality of life is so low, some Christians may support euthanasia as the consequence will be compassionate as the patient will no longer suffer as requested by them.
On the other hand, Jesus taught that we should demonstrate acts of compassion through the upholding of the Law, suggesting that it is moral to observe the Law in order to reach the end that is compassion (making it a deontological ethic). In Genesis chapter 10, we are taught to follow the Ten Commandments, one of which is “do not murder”. In the case of euthanasia, Christians can take the deontological approach and say euthanasia is wrong because it is going against the Law of “do not murder”. The teleological approach does not take into account the action itself, but the consequences (outcomes) of the action, and whether it is the most loving. If my action causes pain and suffering, then it is bad. If my action causes happiness and love, then it is good. The action isn’t good in itself (not intrinsically good), but good by virtue of the result. The sanctity of life is a common theme throughout the Bible. This implies that everyone has intrinsic worth, or in Kant’s words: should be treated as a means in themselves.
Christian ethics can contain characteristics of a deontological and teleological approach because some Christians may look to approaches which have the greatest action and best outcome. Christians who give money and supplies to charities are doing a good deed (a good action) and in return the outcome should be beneficial to those who are given the donations. This is therefore an intrinsically good action as it is good in itself and also brings about good consequences. Paul Lehmann who is very much with Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics approach says, “Christian ethics is not concerned with the good, but what I, as a believer in Jesus Christ and as a member of his church, am to do. Christian ethics, in other words, is orientated toward revelation and not toward morality.” Many believers would then do good actions with good outcomes in order to show their faith in the church and Jesus Christ.
Whether Christian ethics is teleological or deontological can be debated. In either case, however, it is concerned with norms or standards. It is not interested simply in describing the patterns of people’s actions, in analysing their moral beliefs, customs and practices. That is a function of the social sciences, which try to avoid making value judgements. They are not in the business of saying that this way of acting is good and that way is bad. The most that they will say is that this way of acting achieves certain results and that way of acting achieves other results. The essence of religious ethics, however, is the making of value judgements. Its nature is to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. It is to recommend a way of acting either for the achievement of certain desirable goals (teleological) or as a response to certain fundamental relationships (deontological). Christianity can therefore be approached from a deontological or teleological view point. As we can see not all Christians agree on all issues and the different denominations of Christians differ slightly on their judgements and values.