There Are No Rules In Situation Ethics Sample Answer
“There are no rules in Situation Ethics.” Assess this claim
Some people have criticised Situation Ethics, saying that it has no rules as each situation must be considered when making an ethical decision. But how accurate is this criticism?
William Barclay is very vocal on this. He accuses Fletcher of heading towards anarchy. In his view we need rules in society. He says that rules are the result of our past experiences as a society and that to discard them is dangerous. His system of ethics is a deontological one where an action is intrinsically good or bad and the rules are therefore helpful, if not necessary, in guiding people. In his view murder is always wrong as the act of murder is wrong.
I can see his point, and in some ways it is valid. However I do think that he misunderstands what Situation Ethics is. He likens it to little more than antinomianism where there are no rules or guidelines and decisions are made on an individual basis with no guiding principle. Of course there are similarities with Situation Ethics: decisions are made on an individual basis. However to say that Situation Ethics has no guiding principle is wrong. This guiding principle is in fact a rule so the claim is incorrect.
Fletcher makes it very clear that there is one rule in Situation Ethics: that of love. His first principle is ‘love is the only norm’. This is what Barclay appears to ignore. So yes, whilst you should make each decision on an individual basis, depending on the situation, you should do so in accordance with this rule: you do whatever brings the most loving outcome. This is most definitely a rule.
Of course Barclay is aware of this so why does he, and others, continue to assert the above claim? This is largely down to the vagueness of Fletcher’s ‘rule’. He speaks of agape (brotherly love) and how we should demonstrate agape in every action. However the main issue is that he is not consistent in what this actually means. He has been accused by
Some people have criticised Situation Ethics, saying that it has no rules as each situation must be considered when making an ethical decision. But how accurate is this criticism?
William Barclay is very vocal on this. He accuses Fletcher of heading towards anarchy. In his view we need rules in society. He says that rules are the result of our past experiences as a society and that to discard them is dangerous. His system of ethics is a deontological one where an action is intrinsically good or bad and the rules are therefore helpful, if not necessary, in guiding people. In his view murder is always wrong as the act of murder is wrong.
I can see his point, and in some ways it is valid. However I do think that he misunderstands what Situation Ethics is. He likens it to little more than antinomianism where there are no rules or guidelines and decisions are made on an individual basis with no guiding principle. Of course there are similarities with Situation Ethics: decisions are made on an individual basis. However to say that Situation Ethics has no guiding principle is wrong. This guiding principle is in fact a rule so the claim is incorrect.
Fletcher makes it very clear that there is one rule in Situation Ethics: that of love. His first principle is ‘love is the only norm’. This is what Barclay appears to ignore. So yes, whilst you should make each decision on an individual basis, depending on the situation, you should do so in accordance with this rule: you do whatever brings the most loving outcome. This is most definitely a rule.
Of course Barclay is aware of this so why does he, and others, continue to assert the above claim? This is largely down to the vagueness of Fletcher’s ‘rule’. He speaks of agape (brotherly love) and how we should demonstrate agape in every action. However the main issue is that he is not consistent in what this actually means. He has been accused by