ON SITUATION ETHICS
AT 49 : July 15th 2000
In Ethics and Belief published by Sheddon Press (London) in 1977 (ISBN 085969 110 1) the Christian writer, Peter Baelz, gives a brief but sufficient account of general ethical theory for the serious lay reader Among the many approaches to ethics is one called Situation Ethics (attributed to Joseph Fletcher - see Situation Ethics, SCM Press 1966). The summary of Fletcher's ideas is given in Baelz's book in the following words - copied directly and with thanks (from page 100).
It will be noted that the word Christian is not essential to Fletcher's ideas as set out by Baelz ; this fact might explain how Situation Ethics has come to gain some following among secularists in spite of its Christian associations.
Baelz give a very careful analysis of Fletcher's theory. The purpose of this article is not to demolish Fletcher so much as to show that his theory - valuable though it may be - is no more the last word on ethical theory than are many other ethical theories both ancient and modern. Briefly, the answer given in this Atheist Thought to Baelz's closing question ..... is NO.
To see how Situation Ethics - the Love Theory of Ethics - might be applied, let us consider an imaginary dialogue between an inquisitor and a heretic. Let us imagine a high tech Orwellian-future version of that once-dreaded institution - The Holy Inquisition.
INQUISITOR : I have been ordered by the Church to do whatever is necessary to correct the heretical views into which you have fallen. I approach this task wholly in the spirit of "love thy neighbour as thyself".
Have you studied the letter that our bishop sent to you some weeks ago?
HERETIC: I do not understand your use of the word 'love' in this connection; we have never met before; we have not yet had the opportunity even to like one another ........ although I hope that we may soon come to do so.
INQ : Love wills the neighbour's good whether we like him or ot - whether indeed we are acquainted with him or not. Love is a concern for another's best interest quite irrespective of acquaintance, affection or anything else whatever and only the end, and nothing else, justifies the means.
My professional duty, as Inquisitor, is to act single-mindedly for the good of your immortal soul; this is the overriding sense in which the duty of love is to be understood. Heresy, uncorrected, will result in your eternal torment - excruciating and beyond relief - in Hell ......... whether Hell is considered literally or metaphorically.
HER : I am grateful, Father, for your generous concern for my soul.
INQ : That is very kind of you, My Son, but if I fail to strive to the utmost to correct your heresy then my own soul will be imperilled. My doing my duty, both by God and by you, is not so much a matter of generosity as of enlightened self interest on my part. I hope it is now clear to you what the word love means in this connection.
I have to remind you, My Son, that I asked whether you have studied the bishop's letter.
HER : Thank you for your explanation of love. Yes I have studied the letter but I question, indeed reject, much that is written in it.
INQ : You clearly do not understand the implications of your last remark; it is not for you to agree, or to disagree, with the Church; it is for you to obey its authority; that is the purpose for which God has willed that the authority of His Church be placed over us all. Your private opinion is of no matter; it is your obedience that is required and the only questions that you need, or are indeed permitted, to ask are those to which the due answers might illuminate and inform that obedience.
HER : I understand what you say but I do not accept it. I value my own judgment and I find it inconceivable that God would punish me for the honest, if misguided opinions that I hold; He would value the honesty; He would not have me bear what, to me, would be false witness. In His wisdom and mercy He helps me surely, and in His own good time and by His own sufficient means, to correct whatever error I may fall into.
INQ : Quite so!
And I am the immediate instrument of that help; I have a teaching task to perform; I have to teach you the fact of your current error and the consequences of your persisting in it. In the latter connection, every teacher knows that a practical demonstration achieves more than any amount of purely verbal exposition. Look this way, My Son, and tell me what you see.
HER : I see various ancient instruments of torture - not, if I may say so Father, in good condition. The thumbscrew is unusable (its thread is crossed and it is rusted beyond repair) and the rack is missing a ratchet.
INQ : My Son, you are right - if somewhat precocious. The branding iron, too, is suspect; its careless use might hurt the inquisitor using it; it is therefore not fit to comply with current safety regulations and the International Union of Inquisitors would never countenance its use.
HER : Why show me all this old junk?
INQ : Torture serves to demonstrate, to the heretic, a little of what an eternity in Hell is like. That is an example of practical teaching. That is an example of overriding ends underpinning necessary means.
HER : Surely Father, a loving person like you would not torture anyone. You could not bring yourself to do it.
INQ : I own to having grave misgivings about inflicting pain - so help me God - but I must do my duty. Fortunately the modern Church has no need of the cruder 'hands on' methods of torture. You may recall that you were given a cup of tea before we began our discussion.
HER : Rather as you get a cup of tea when you go to hospital to be a blood donor.
INQ : The analogy is flawed. The tea contained a drug recently developed by the Pharmacological Arm of the Holy See. This remarkable substance is what may be termed an anti-analgesic; its ingestion enhances pain and therefore makes torture easier and less demanding of skilled manpower. Indeed the Luddite Tendency within the International Union of Inquisitors is concerned about possible redundancy among its long serving members. But the Church has never been the enemy of progress; redundant inquisitors will be beatified for their pains.
HER : Father, already I am beginning to feel severe discomfort - even from the weight of my body pressing on this wooden chair.
INQ : My Son ..... you will see that I am a feeble old man and I assure you that my handshake is not a strong one. Let me take you by the hand.
HER : That is sheer agony. Even if you were simply to pat me very gently all over then I would feel I were being given a severe beating.
INQ : Quite so!
The experience of my feeble old handshake may concentrate your mind wonderfully on what it is like to be in eternal torment. The experience may well help you to recant, may help you to see the truth that you have so perversely resisted.
HER : How can I be released from this awful drug - supposing that I may earn release by recantation?
INQ : I can give you an injection of the antidote but, I warn you, in the circumstances the insertion of the needle will be extremely painful and the longer you delay the worse it will be .........
Readers may write their own ghoulish endings to this dialogue but that is not important. What is important is that, whatever the personal virtue of Joseph Fletcher and however benignly the Love Ethic may be applied in many practical situations, that ethic can and, under the Holy Inquisition, did lead to the most horrible cruelties. That being so, we have to identify the flaws in the Love Ethic; I suggest that there are two.
a) how can a person's best interest be identified as a matter of fact rather than as one of opinion?
If that question cannot be answered with certainty then judgments as to best interests are unsafe (in the sense that a conviction by a court of law may be deemed unsafe).
This difficulty is very similar to that encountered in deontological ethics - the view that morality resides simply in obeying known rules. How do we know the rules, how do we know that they are good rules, how do we apply them rightly in real and complex cases?
The difficulty is very similar to that encountered in teleological ethics - the view that the morality of a proposed act is determined by the goodness of its consequences. How can we be sure what consequences will follow from a given act, how can we allow for the possibility of unforeseen consequences and, in any case, what actually determines whether a consequence is good or not?
The Love Ethic depends ultimately, just like deontological and teleological ethics, upon opinion; no opinion, however sincerely held, can turn itself into a fact merely for the reassurance of the person holding it.
Fletcher's claim (6, above) that the Love Ethic is not "prescriptive" is sound precisely because the identification of "the neighbour's good" can never be absolutely certain - but must, ultimately, be a matter of opinion rather than of fact.. This leads to the second basic objection to the Love Ethic
b) The Love Ethic seems to be independent of the loved one's opinion as to his, or her, best interest. In the above dialogue the inquisitor concedes no recognition that the heretic may be quite willing to take the can back for the opinions he holds as against those of the Church. Personal autonomy and individual responsibility are discounted by the inquisitor. Obedience is one's prior duty.
The reader may think that the above criticism of Fletcher's Love Ethic rests upon (rather than being merely illustrated by) a fanciful encounter between an inquisitor and a heretic. This is not so. Recall the famous remark made by CS Lewis (a populist theologian of a few generations ago) who said, of a lady acquaintance, "She lives for others; you can recognise the others by their hunted look".
It seems that Fletcher has really done little more than to endorse altruism - rather like re-inventing the wheel.
HOME PAGE