You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Situation ethics is a teleological, broadly consequentialist Christian ethical theory developed principally by the American Episcopal theologian Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991) in his 1966 book Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Its single guiding claim is that the only intrinsic moral absolute is agape — selfless, unconditional, neighbour-regarding love — and that every concrete moral decision must be worked out in the light of the particular situation, asking not "what does the rule say?" but "what does love require here?" Within AQA A-Level Religious Studies (7062), situation ethics is the named teleological normative theory set against the deontological natural moral law and the character-based virtue ethics, and it is a key partner in the synoptic dialogue between ethics and Christianity. The specification expects you to apply it to the prescribed practical issues — including theft and lying, and the questions of human and animal life and death — so the abstract theory must always be kept ready for concrete use.
The theory belongs to a particular moment in twentieth-century Protestant thought. Fletcher and his English ally Bishop John Robinson were writing in the 1960s, a decade of rapid social change in which the inherited rule-bound morality of the churches looked, to many, both rigid and out of touch. Their proposal was radical: keep the Christian centre — love — but cut away the apparatus of fixed prohibitions that had grown up around it. The result is a theory that is recognisably Christian in its source yet strikingly liberal in its conclusions, and that has been fiercely contested by Catholics and conservative Protestants alike.
Before going further it helps to see the structure of Fletcher's theory, because it is unusually tidy and examiners reward students who can lay it out. There are three things to keep distinct: the three approaches (legalism, antinomianism, situationism) which place situation ethics on the map; the four working principles (pragmatism, relativism, positivism, personalism) which describe the attitudes the situationist brings; and the six fundamental principles, the propositions that spell out how agape actually operates. Many candidates blur the four working principles and the six fundamental principles together; keeping them apart, and knowing which is which, is one of the simplest ways to lift an answer from competent to strong.
Key term: Situation ethics rejects both legalism and antinomianism and holds that the morally right action in any circumstance is the most loving one, where love means agape: a disposition of active, unconditional goodwill towards the neighbour, not a feeling.
Fletcher frames his theory by contrasting it with two rivals, presenting situationism as the reasonable middle path between them.
Legalism approaches every moral question armed in advance with a system of prefabricated rules and regulations. In the Christian context this means binding adherence to the Decalogue, canon law and church teaching as a set of more-or-less unbreakable directives. Its virtue is certainty and consistency; its vice, in Fletcher's eyes, is that it can become an end in itself, sacrificing human beings to the letter of the law and multiplying ever more elaborate exceptions and casuistry to cope with cases the rules never anticipated.
Key term: Legalism is the ethical approach that treats fixed moral rules as binding in advance of, and irrespective of, the particular situation.
At the opposite pole stands antinomianism (Greek anti + nomos, "against law"): the rejection of all rules and principles whatever, so that each decision is made spontaneously, with no guiding norm. Fletcher dismisses this as unprincipled and morally anarchic — without any standard, decisions become arbitrary, unpredictable and easily self-serving. Crucially, situation ethics is not antinomian: it has a principle, and a demanding one.
Situationism enters the situation "fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage," Fletcher says, and treats them with respect as illuminators of experience — but it is prepared to set any of them aside if love seems better served by doing so. The rules are real and useful; they are simply not absolute. Only love is.
Key term: Agape (Greek ἀγάπη) is unconditional, sacrificial, neighbour-directed love — the love commanded in the New Testament and described in 1 Corinthians 13. In situation ethics it is the sole intrinsic good and the only absolute.
It matters that Fletcher's absolute is agape and not some other kind of love. Greek distinguishes several loves — eros (desire), philia (friendship), storge (familial affection) — and these are all to some degree conditional and selective: we desire what attracts us, befriend those we like, cherish our own kin. Agape is different in kind. It is the love that the New Testament uses for God's love for humanity and commands in return: a disposition of active goodwill that is owed to everyone, including the stranger and the enemy, whether or not we feel any warmth towards them. This is why Fletcher insists agape is not an emotion but a policy of the will — "a matter of attitude, not of feeling." Anchoring the theory in agape rather than affection blocks the obvious objection that love is fickle: I cannot be commanded to feel fondness for an enemy, but I can be required to will their good. The famous description in 1 Corinthians 13 — love is patient and kind, does not insist on its own way, bears all things — supplies the content, and the cross supplies the model of love that gives itself away for the other's sake.
Fletcher sets out four presuppositions — the attitudes a situationist brings to any decision.
| Principle | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Pragmatism | The proposed course of action must actually work — be practical and serve love in the real world, not merely satisfy a theory. |
| Relativism | There are no absolute rules to be applied mechanically; every decision is relative to the situation. Fletcher stresses this "relativises the absolute" without "absolutising the relative" — love alone stays fixed. |
| Positivism | Christian ethics begins from a freely chosen, faith-based commitment to love (a "posited" first principle), not from a proof of love's value by reason. One decides for love; one cannot be argued into it. |
| Personalism | People come before things and principles. Ethics is centred on persons and their wellbeing, never on the abstract rule or the institution. |
These four are easy to confuse, so it is worth fixing them by their key word: pragmatism = does it work?; relativism = fixed to the situation, not the rule; positivism = love is chosen, not proved; personalism = persons first.
Pragmatism and personalism are more straightforward but no less important. Pragmatism, which Fletcher inherits from the American philosophical tradition of William James and John Dewey, insists that a loving intention is not enough: the chosen action must actually succeed in serving the neighbour's good in the real world. Personalism keeps human persons, never abstractions, at the centre — it is people who are to be loved, so rules, institutions and ideals matter only in so far as they serve persons. Two of the principles, however, repay closer attention because they are widely misunderstood. Relativism in Fletcher's mouth is not the claim that all moral views are equally valid — that would make the theory antinomian. It is the narrower claim that the application of love is relative to circumstances: the same loving concern will rightly produce different actions in different situations. The one absolute, love, is held constant; everything else is relative to it. Fletcher's slogan is that situation ethics "relativises the absolute, it does not absolutise the relative." Positivism, similarly, is a claim about foundations: it marks Fletcher's view that the supremacy of love is not something reason can demonstrate from neutral premises but something the believer posits — freely accepts as a starting commitment of faith. This honest admission, that the theory rests on a chosen first principle rather than a proof, is both candid and a point of vulnerability, since a critic may simply decline to make that commitment.
Fletcher's six propositions spell out how agape actually functions as the ruling norm.
Key term: Conscience, for Fletcher, is not a faculty or a stored body of rules but a verb — "conscience" describes the activity of making loving decisions, the mind working out what love demands. There is no fixed inner voice to consult, only the ongoing task of loving wisely.
Fletcher deliberately uses extreme, provocative cases to dramatise that love, not rule, decides.
These cases show situation ethics rejecting sentimentality and embracing hard, calculated judgements; they are also, as we shall see, exactly where its critics say the theory becomes dangerous. Notice how much the cases are designed to do. They are chosen to be ones in which the "loving" verdict conflicts with a clear traditional rule (against adultery, against killing), so that if the reader agrees with Fletcher's verdict they are pushed towards conceding that love can override rule. But a critic can resist at exactly this point. In the Bergmeier case, for instance, it is far from obvious that the adultery really was the most loving option, or that "most loving" is even well enough defined to settle the matter; and a natural law theorist would deny that a good end can sanctify an intrinsically wrong means at all. The cases therefore function less as proofs than as intuition-pumps, and their persuasiveness depends on prior agreement about what love requires — which is precisely what is in dispute.
The Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson (1919–1983) prepared the ground for situation ethics in Britain with his sensational 1963 book Honest to God. Robinson argued that the morality of "thou shalt nots" handed down from on high no longer spoke to modern people, and that Christian ethics should be reconceived around love as the only absolute. He famously declared that nothing can of itself always be labelled wrong — "the only intrinsic evil is lack of love" — and that moral rules are good servants but bad masters. Honest to God sold extraordinarily well and provoked furious debate, lending situation ethics a public prominence within mainstream Anglicanism that Fletcher's more academic work alone might not have achieved.
Robinson did, however, draw a line that is easy to miss. He distinguished situation ethics from a merely permissive "do as you please," insisting that love is the most exacting and exposed of all moral demands: to act lovingly in each fresh situation is harder, not easier, than to follow a rule, because it offers the agent no hiding place behind "I was only obeying the law." For both Fletcher and Robinson, then, the theory was meant to be more demanding than legalism, not a licence — a point worth stressing against the lazy criticism that situation ethics is simply 1960s permissiveness in theological dress.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.