Situation Ethics is unworkable in practice. Discuss (40/40, Grade A*)

The workability of situation ethics could mean the ease of identifying a norm to use, the ease of application of the norm, or the realism of the theory itself. It could be argued situation ethics fails on all three counts, as the author William Barclay suggests in his book Ethics in a Permissive Society.

The candidate doesn’t make the mistake of trying to say everything in summary in the opening paragraph. Instead, there is concise discussion of ‘unworkable’. Always raise issue around key words in the title.

Situation ethics claims a simple, easy to define norm, that of agape love. Agape love means sacrificial love for friend or stranger. In reality it is a difficult norm to define because it implies impartiality, strict neutrality in the observe and what utilitarian Peter Singer calls the universal viewpoint. If my interests spread out from me like ripples of a pond, I naturally place my immediate family first, my friends second, and my acquaintances, third. People who are strangers lie many circles beyond immediate circles of interest. By implying impartiality, the norm of agape love is therefore both unrealistic and almost impossible to apply in practice. Which stranger do I include, and how many?

Good. Many candidates take an uncritical view of situation ethics which is arguably a difficult, challenging and demanding normative theory. Good use of another scholar – preference utilitarian Singer is famous for his ‘universal viewpoint’ – which is an idea requiring quite heroic sacrifice.

The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates just how demanding love is. The battered man is rescued by the Samaritan who uses his donkey as transport, where priest and levite has passed by without stopping. The Samaritan even pays the bill and offers to repay any debts the innkeeper should encounter in caring for the injured man. This type of love, although incarnated by Jesus Christ, is impossible for most of us as well as being unreasonable. No wonder Fletcher posits Positivism as one of his working  principles. Positivism means we are supposed to accept situation ethics by faith, on trust. Even if we are able to do this heroic acceptance, it is nonetheless just too demanding a norm.

Excellent use of an example to show how agape works and synoptically linking this to the Moral Principles part of the Christian Thought paper. You get AO2 credit for making synoptic links.

Barclay indicates a more serious problem. Situation ethics is situated between legalism and antinomianism, between adherence to the law and an anarchic disdain for law. Yet it is unclear in Fletcher’s theory exactly what role law plays. Comparing, for example, situation ethics with Mill’s rule utilitarianism, we can see that Mill argues we should generally follow rules until our own wisdom suggest that there is a moral conflict where something has to go. For example, in euthanasia cases you cannot always preserve life and also alleviate pain: the opiod can kill you as a physician induced act of mercy.

Good critical AO2 comment here. Good use of an additional scholar – candidates should be familiar with William Barclay who is listed in the suggested reading on the specification.

Therefore, the place of law is important in society at least in preserving a barrier between simple choice (to kill a patient) and a moral dilemma (when you can’t have both moral ‘goods’). Barclay points out that society needs rules to provide a coherence to its public morality, and also to show the wisdom of previous generations. Rules pass on that wisdom and provide a basis for moral education. Rules of course don’t have to be absolute as the Bible itself shows: ‘do not kill’ cannot include killing in times of war as the Bible also permits the military campaigns of Joshua. But by failing to recognise the role of rules, Fletcher adds to the problems of situation ethics – it becomes unworkable because it places too much responsibility on individual judgement.

Excellent paragraph again showing a blend of knowledge (of absolutes and what they might mean) and a strong AO2 line of reasoning.

Finally two further working principles add to the problem with the ethics. Personalism implies we take the individual needs seriously and place them as a priority. But individuals do not exist in a vacuum. When a teenager chooses to take drugs, it affects everyone: family, school, friends and society which pays the bill for treatment. Situation ethics is in danger of becoming a narrow, almost selfish ethic (ironically as agape is selfless love). And pragmatism implies we proceed case by case. Apparently we abandon rules, the social context and the idea of society itself in simply concentrating on the case in front of us. This too is, I argue, impossible in practice.

Good reference back to the four working principles. The candidate has not mentioned the fourth one, relativism, which basically means that you ‘relativise the absolute’ the absolute being the unchangeable norm of agape. It is made relative always to the circumstances argues Fletcher. Paradoxically he calls his theory ‘principled relativism’.

In conclusion: in concentrating just on the supreme norm of agape and its too demanding nature, by analysing the four working principles and assessing their workability we can see that situation ethics is superficially attractive (all we need is love) but practically unworkable. Moreover as Barclay suggests, we cannot wisely do without rules, nor underplay their value in building a workable ethic.

AO1 Level 6 (16 marks)

AO2 Level 6 (24 marks)

This essay is shorter than many A* answers. But it illustrates something the examiner reminds us about in the June 2018 report: it is not length that matters. The essay shouldn’t be a knowledge display. Notice how the candidate never mentions any background to Joseph Fletcher, the decade he wrote in (the 1960s) or anything extraneous at all. It is a lean, tightly argued essay.

Exercise: write an opening paragraph on the same title above taking the opposite viewpoint (ie that situation ethics is workable).