The term situation ethics, coined by Joseph Fletcher in 1966, is sometimes referred to as “situational ethics” or as “situationism.” Fletcher and others argued that moral and legal absolutes are inflexible and do not allow for rational, thinking humans to make choices and decisions based on the specifics and characteristics of social events. In contrast, situation ethics refers to a definition of right and wrong rooted in the uniqueness and variability of social situations rather than according to absolute principle. Situation ethics thus emphasizes context.
Fletcher believed that people must have the freedom to define situations according to the unique and special circumstances that may occur in any human encounter. Central to this process is the idea that situational elements alter cases, which in turn alter the principles guiding behavior. For example, an absolute view would be that honesty is a moral principle and should be followed in all situations. Situation ethics would lead one to think that some situations are improved with dishonesty or that dishonesty is the better choice for some human interaction situations, usually with the argument that the truth would hurt someone needlessly. An absolute legal point of view would be that breaking the law is always wrong, and violators should be punished. Situation ethics would lead one to think that unique situations redefine law-violating behavior. For example, breaking a law to prevent a terrorist attack would invoke a higher, more important cause.
Opponents of situation ethics argue that it is moral relativism, with the result that no one set of ethics or principles is any better than another. They argue that people need a firm set of moral principles to live by. Some critics argue that situation ethics philosophy is a version of the idea that the end justifies the means. Because situation ethics does emphasize contextual appropriateness, it leads to the notion that an action indeed may be considered acceptable if the end is defined as fitting or appropriate. However, Fletcher did not believe his concept of situation ethics was moral relativism. As an Episcopal priest, he argued that all behavior must be guided by the altruistic form of selfless love (agape), and that situational decisions should be made ultimately with agape in mind, as opposed to specific principles or specific laws.
In social science today, the term situation ethics has generally lost its connection to the philosophical idea of agape. Currently, it most often refers to situational definitions of right and wrong and that rules for behavior should not be rigid in social life but vary according to the circumstances involved. Situation ethics allows, for example, a social actor to say, “I think cheating is wrong overall, but in this case, it was okay for me to cheat because I had a special situation.”
Bibliography:
- Fletcher, Joseph. [1966] 1997. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
This example Situation Ethics Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.
See also:
ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER
Always on-time
Plagiarism-Free
100% Confidentiality
Special offer!
