What do you think?
Rate this book
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
Igniting a firestorm of controversy upon its publication in 1966, Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics was hailed by many as a much-needed reformation of morality--and as an invitation to anarchy by others. Proposing an ethic of loving concern, Fletcher suggests that certain acts--such as lying, premarital sex, adultery, or even murder--might be morally right, depending on the circumstances. Hotly debated on television, in magazines and newspapers, in churches, and in the classroom, Fletcher's provocative thesis remains a powerful force in contemporary discussions of morality. The Library of Theological Ethics series focuses on what it means to think theologically and ethically. It presents a selection of important and otherwise unavailable texts in easily accessible form. Volumes in this series will enable sustained dialogue with predecessors though reflection on classic works in the field.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1966
10 people are currently reading
296 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
August 25, 2015
Did I love this book, no. Did I agree with his ideas, no. But I think everyone should read this book atleast once in their life. It tickles your brain and opens a flood gate of important questions to ask and discuss.
March 23, 2016
You can summarize Fletcher's ethic as "Claim love, and then you can use it to fornicate and stuff."
Even though this book is bad, it isn't completely bad. The beginning of the book is fairly well-written. I will do my best to outline Fletcher's position but I will follow with an extended critique.
While Fletcher's ethics is formally empty, he does explain it (sort of). Situationism: the mean between legalism and antinomianism (Fletcher 26). It has an absolute “norm” (love) and a calculating method (27). All rules are contingent provided they serve agape-love.
What is its method? Fletcher helpfully outlines (33).
1. Only one law, agape.
2. Sophia of the church and culture, containing “rules” which act as illuminators.
3. Kairos: the moment of the responsible self in a situation.
Fletcher identifies his historical pedigree.
1 Pragmatism. In short, he focuses on “satisfaction” as a criterion for truth (41ff). Of course, works toward what? This is the value problem 2. in ethics. Not surprisingly, Fletcher lists “love” as his value.
3. Relativism. To be relative means to be relative to something (44).
4. Positivism. Faith propositions are posited a-rationally. “Every moral judgment is a decision, not a conclusion” (47).
5. Personalism. Love people, not things (50).
First Proposition: Only love is intrinsically good (57).
Second Proposition: “The ruling norm of the Christian decision is love: nothing else” (69).
Third Proposition: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed (87).
Fourth Proposition: Love wills the neighbor’s good, whether we like him or not (104).
Fifth proposition: Only the End Justifies the Means; nothing else (120).
*Fletcher isn’t all bad. He exposes the false promises of historicist ethics. Simply by noting the past one cannot anticipate the right action in the present, given the inevitable unfolding of the past. Basically, Hegel is wrong.
*True, ethical decisions always take place in a situation and context.
*Fletcher reminds us that Victorian social mores are rarely biblical (even if he has the unfortunate habit of labeling his critics as such). Further, though not always called out by him, most of the “horrid” puritanical legalism (in this book) derives not from church law but from secular ethics.
*Fletcher exposes some incoherent moments in Barth’s ethics (62, cf. CD III/4, p. 416-421).
*Fletcher notes some difficulties in Roman Catholic birth-control positions along with some difficulties in NFP (80).
* calls classical pacifism legalistic (83-84). In fact, he has a very perceptive critique of Tolstoyanism: they want love but deny order.
*Says the social gospel is “pietistic” about love (91).
*His criticism of Catholic moralism’s separation of love as a supernatural virtue but justice as a natural virtue is interesting and should have been more developed (93ff).
* He helpfully outlines Chrysostom’s ethics as not confusing ends and means. Fletcher just sinfully rejects it.
The Critique:
(1) Fletcher says we can’t “milk universals from a universal” (27). What he means is we can make principles from “the law of love,” but not rules. But why not? He just asserts this. He doesn’t prove it.
(2) Although this is a minor point, it is worth noting. Fletcher holds to the (debunked) “Biblical vs. Hellenistic” dichotomy (29). The Hebrew is “verb-minded” while the Greek is “noun-minded.” “It doesn’t ask what is the good, but how to do good” (52). But if I don’t know what the good is, rather just labeling it x, then how will I know if I am doing not-good?
(3) Can one really define agape-love without recourse to revelation? Why can we privilege the term agape, itself drawn from revelation, while saying the rest of revelation is off-limits? The apostle John defined love by God’s commandments. Fletcher wants to reject the idea of “unwritten rules from heaven” (30), but without any specific content to “love,” that is just what he has.
(4) Fletcher rejects legalism because of the bad things legalism has done. Francis Kovach draws the following devastating conclusion: “Human laws happen to have had certain undesirable effects; therefore, let's do away with all human laws” (Kovach 99).
(5) When faced with the obvious question, “So what do I do in situation x,” Fletcher admits the best he can say is, “It depends” (80). Which is another way of saying, "I don't know."
(6) Fletcher’s arrogance is obvious. He routinely scorns his opponents as “fundamentalists,” “literalists,” “legalists” and the like. He ridicules those who “Believe in a Fall” (81).
(7) Fletcher holds to utilitarianism and so his position is suspect to all of the critiques of utilitarianism. But more to the point: in his calculus do we evaluate neighbor-good qualitatively or quantitatively? Unbelievably, he even says we can use numerical factors for issues relating to conscience (118). He is actually serious. Even worse, he tells a tale of the god-demon Moloch and sides with Moloch on how many to kill!
(8) More on utilitarianism: who gets to determine what “good” means? Fletcher himself? From where does he get this knowledge? From Jesus and the Bible? Sounds kind of “literalist” to me! Even worse, his position offers no protection to minority viewpoint, since by definition they will never been in the “greater” number. Fletcher defends racial minorities. Good for him, but it’s not clear on his ethics why he can do so, since they are never “the greatest number.”
As Norman Geisler points out, “The definition of “end” is unclear. Do we mean a few years? Lifetime? Eternity? In that case, only God could be a utilitarian and he is not.”
8.1) Another problem with utilitarianism, as noted by Arthur Holmes. What does it mean to “maximize the good?” Do we take the sum of the surplus good or do we just average it across the population? If we talk about the “Greater good,” can we ignore minority rights as long as we maximize the greater good?
“If 100 people each receive 10 bens (units of benefit), then the sum total is 1000 “bens” and the average is 10. But if we increase the benefit for 10 people to 100 bens each, give the next 60 people their original 10 bens, and the remaining 30 no bens at all, then the total benefit is 100 + 600 + 0 = 1600 bens; and the average is up to 16. But the distribution is now extremely unequal. Which of these two is the morally better distribution of benefits” ?
Can the utility principle by itself tell us how to best distribute benefits?
(9) Says Paul was “obscure and contradictory” about the problem of the justice of God (122). In fact, Fletcher formally disagrees with Paul on Romans 3:8. That’s because, per Fletcher, Paul erred in seeing “good” and “evil” as properties, not predicates.
(10) If love is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of neighbors, and Fletcher lists the situation where a group of people are hiding from murderers and a baby starts crying, which would expose the group, then the most loving thing to do is kill the baby. Okay, what if I refuse to kill my baby, did I sin? Corollary: Does Fletcher say I must kill my baby? Corollary #2: What if I refuse? Should the group make me?
(11) Throughout the book Fletcher makes a number of category confusions. This is not surprising, given his lack of ethical knowledge due to his only reading Neo-Orthodox and death-of-God theologians. For example, ethical theories like graded absolutism do not see deception in war as lying.
(12) Fletcher is guilty of circular reasoning:
P1: The end justifies the means
P2: The end does not justify itself
C1: Only love does.
Yet, how can I know the loving action?
P3: Love = greatest good to greatest neighbors. Yet, this is materially the same thing as P1.
Therefore, his argument runs:
P1
P2
Therefore, P1
(13) Fletcher openly ridicules Middle-Class America (137).
(14) He wants to say that “law-based” citizens would have rejected Dr King, yet on what grounds can Fletcher say that? Why can’t the evil-capitalist-white-man say, from his perspective, that the most loving thing to do is uphold segregation? Now, I believe the segregationist is wrong, but I can say, unlike Fletcher, that he is absolutely wrong.
(15) Unless there is advanced cognitive content to what “love” is, then one doesn’t really know what I am commanded to do.
(16) Let's go back to his consequentialism in ethics. The mainline Protestant denominations more or less adopted Fletcher's position? How are they doing today, membership-wise? The PC(usa) and TEC are losing members by the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Seems like they failed Fletcher's consequentialist test.
Conclusion:
While Fletcher highlights some interesting and difficult issues in ethics, he rarely gives solutions (unless it involves extra-marital sex, in which he is always for it). This is not surprising. He cannot give solutions. He cannot give solutions because his criterion for value, “love,” is empty and meaningless.
Fletcher likes to tell “bleeding-heart” stories to show how wrong his critics are. Okay. Two can play at that game, as one reviewer notes. Fletcher tells the story:
A young woman, jilted by her lover, is in a state of great depression. A married man, with whom she works, decides to have an affair with her in order to comfort her. Some, like Fletcher, would argue that what he did might well have been a noble deed, for the man acted out of concern for his friend. What a perverted viewpoint! Here is the rest of the story. The man’s wife learned of his adulterous adventure, could not cope with the trauma, and eventually committed suicide. One of his sons, disillusioned by the immorality of his father and the death of his mother, began a life of crime, and finally was imprisoned for murder. Another son became a drunkard and was killed in an automobile accident that also claimed the lives of a mother and her two children. Now, who will contend that that initial act of infidelity was the “loving” thing to do?
At the end of the day, not only is Fletcher’s ethics morally depraved, it is logically useless. As Erwin Lutzer notes, “It’s like saying, “The only rules to the game is “Be fair!””
Even though this book is bad, it isn't completely bad. The beginning of the book is fairly well-written. I will do my best to outline Fletcher's position but I will follow with an extended critique.
While Fletcher's ethics is formally empty, he does explain it (sort of). Situationism: the mean between legalism and antinomianism (Fletcher 26). It has an absolute “norm” (love) and a calculating method (27). All rules are contingent provided they serve agape-love.
What is its method? Fletcher helpfully outlines (33).
1. Only one law, agape.
2. Sophia of the church and culture, containing “rules” which act as illuminators.
3. Kairos: the moment of the responsible self in a situation.
Fletcher identifies his historical pedigree.
1 Pragmatism. In short, he focuses on “satisfaction” as a criterion for truth (41ff). Of course, works toward what? This is the value problem 2. in ethics. Not surprisingly, Fletcher lists “love” as his value.
3. Relativism. To be relative means to be relative to something (44).
4. Positivism. Faith propositions are posited a-rationally. “Every moral judgment is a decision, not a conclusion” (47).
5. Personalism. Love people, not things (50).
First Proposition: Only love is intrinsically good (57).
Second Proposition: “The ruling norm of the Christian decision is love: nothing else” (69).
Third Proposition: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed (87).
Fourth Proposition: Love wills the neighbor’s good, whether we like him or not (104).
Fifth proposition: Only the End Justifies the Means; nothing else (120).
*Fletcher isn’t all bad. He exposes the false promises of historicist ethics. Simply by noting the past one cannot anticipate the right action in the present, given the inevitable unfolding of the past. Basically, Hegel is wrong.
*True, ethical decisions always take place in a situation and context.
*Fletcher reminds us that Victorian social mores are rarely biblical (even if he has the unfortunate habit of labeling his critics as such). Further, though not always called out by him, most of the “horrid” puritanical legalism (in this book) derives not from church law but from secular ethics.
*Fletcher exposes some incoherent moments in Barth’s ethics (62, cf. CD III/4, p. 416-421).
*Fletcher notes some difficulties in Roman Catholic birth-control positions along with some difficulties in NFP (80).
* calls classical pacifism legalistic (83-84). In fact, he has a very perceptive critique of Tolstoyanism: they want love but deny order.
*Says the social gospel is “pietistic” about love (91).
*His criticism of Catholic moralism’s separation of love as a supernatural virtue but justice as a natural virtue is interesting and should have been more developed (93ff).
* He helpfully outlines Chrysostom’s ethics as not confusing ends and means. Fletcher just sinfully rejects it.
The Critique:
(1) Fletcher says we can’t “milk universals from a universal” (27). What he means is we can make principles from “the law of love,” but not rules. But why not? He just asserts this. He doesn’t prove it.
(2) Although this is a minor point, it is worth noting. Fletcher holds to the (debunked) “Biblical vs. Hellenistic” dichotomy (29). The Hebrew is “verb-minded” while the Greek is “noun-minded.” “It doesn’t ask what is the good, but how to do good” (52). But if I don’t know what the good is, rather just labeling it x, then how will I know if I am doing not-good?
(3) Can one really define agape-love without recourse to revelation? Why can we privilege the term agape, itself drawn from revelation, while saying the rest of revelation is off-limits? The apostle John defined love by God’s commandments. Fletcher wants to reject the idea of “unwritten rules from heaven” (30), but without any specific content to “love,” that is just what he has.
(4) Fletcher rejects legalism because of the bad things legalism has done. Francis Kovach draws the following devastating conclusion: “Human laws happen to have had certain undesirable effects; therefore, let's do away with all human laws” (Kovach 99).
(5) When faced with the obvious question, “So what do I do in situation x,” Fletcher admits the best he can say is, “It depends” (80). Which is another way of saying, "I don't know."
(6) Fletcher’s arrogance is obvious. He routinely scorns his opponents as “fundamentalists,” “literalists,” “legalists” and the like. He ridicules those who “Believe in a Fall” (81).
(7) Fletcher holds to utilitarianism and so his position is suspect to all of the critiques of utilitarianism. But more to the point: in his calculus do we evaluate neighbor-good qualitatively or quantitatively? Unbelievably, he even says we can use numerical factors for issues relating to conscience (118). He is actually serious. Even worse, he tells a tale of the god-demon Moloch and sides with Moloch on how many to kill!
(8) More on utilitarianism: who gets to determine what “good” means? Fletcher himself? From where does he get this knowledge? From Jesus and the Bible? Sounds kind of “literalist” to me! Even worse, his position offers no protection to minority viewpoint, since by definition they will never been in the “greater” number. Fletcher defends racial minorities. Good for him, but it’s not clear on his ethics why he can do so, since they are never “the greatest number.”
As Norman Geisler points out, “The definition of “end” is unclear. Do we mean a few years? Lifetime? Eternity? In that case, only God could be a utilitarian and he is not.”
8.1) Another problem with utilitarianism, as noted by Arthur Holmes. What does it mean to “maximize the good?” Do we take the sum of the surplus good or do we just average it across the population? If we talk about the “Greater good,” can we ignore minority rights as long as we maximize the greater good?
“If 100 people each receive 10 bens (units of benefit), then the sum total is 1000 “bens” and the average is 10. But if we increase the benefit for 10 people to 100 bens each, give the next 60 people their original 10 bens, and the remaining 30 no bens at all, then the total benefit is 100 + 600 + 0 = 1600 bens; and the average is up to 16. But the distribution is now extremely unequal. Which of these two is the morally better distribution of benefits” ?
Can the utility principle by itself tell us how to best distribute benefits?
(9) Says Paul was “obscure and contradictory” about the problem of the justice of God (122). In fact, Fletcher formally disagrees with Paul on Romans 3:8. That’s because, per Fletcher, Paul erred in seeing “good” and “evil” as properties, not predicates.
(10) If love is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of neighbors, and Fletcher lists the situation where a group of people are hiding from murderers and a baby starts crying, which would expose the group, then the most loving thing to do is kill the baby. Okay, what if I refuse to kill my baby, did I sin? Corollary: Does Fletcher say I must kill my baby? Corollary #2: What if I refuse? Should the group make me?
(11) Throughout the book Fletcher makes a number of category confusions. This is not surprising, given his lack of ethical knowledge due to his only reading Neo-Orthodox and death-of-God theologians. For example, ethical theories like graded absolutism do not see deception in war as lying.
(12) Fletcher is guilty of circular reasoning:
P1: The end justifies the means
P2: The end does not justify itself
C1: Only love does.
Yet, how can I know the loving action?
P3: Love = greatest good to greatest neighbors. Yet, this is materially the same thing as P1.
Therefore, his argument runs:
P1
P2
Therefore, P1
(13) Fletcher openly ridicules Middle-Class America (137).
(14) He wants to say that “law-based” citizens would have rejected Dr King, yet on what grounds can Fletcher say that? Why can’t the evil-capitalist-white-man say, from his perspective, that the most loving thing to do is uphold segregation? Now, I believe the segregationist is wrong, but I can say, unlike Fletcher, that he is absolutely wrong.
(15) Unless there is advanced cognitive content to what “love” is, then one doesn’t really know what I am commanded to do.
(16) Let's go back to his consequentialism in ethics. The mainline Protestant denominations more or less adopted Fletcher's position? How are they doing today, membership-wise? The PC(usa) and TEC are losing members by the tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Seems like they failed Fletcher's consequentialist test.
Conclusion:
While Fletcher highlights some interesting and difficult issues in ethics, he rarely gives solutions (unless it involves extra-marital sex, in which he is always for it). This is not surprising. He cannot give solutions. He cannot give solutions because his criterion for value, “love,” is empty and meaningless.
Fletcher likes to tell “bleeding-heart” stories to show how wrong his critics are. Okay. Two can play at that game, as one reviewer notes. Fletcher tells the story:
A young woman, jilted by her lover, is in a state of great depression. A married man, with whom she works, decides to have an affair with her in order to comfort her. Some, like Fletcher, would argue that what he did might well have been a noble deed, for the man acted out of concern for his friend. What a perverted viewpoint! Here is the rest of the story. The man’s wife learned of his adulterous adventure, could not cope with the trauma, and eventually committed suicide. One of his sons, disillusioned by the immorality of his father and the death of his mother, began a life of crime, and finally was imprisoned for murder. Another son became a drunkard and was killed in an automobile accident that also claimed the lives of a mother and her two children. Now, who will contend that that initial act of infidelity was the “loving” thing to do?
At the end of the day, not only is Fletcher’s ethics morally depraved, it is logically useless. As Erwin Lutzer notes, “It’s like saying, “The only rules to the game is “Be fair!””
August 30, 2012
This book is hilarious! If that doesn't justify reading it, what does? The answer is, obviously, nothing!
So so funny. I love 1960's strident.
So so funny. I love 1960's strident.
August 24, 2024
This book is hard to give a rating to for a number of reasons. 1) Joseph Fletchers system of moral decision making is largely (if not entirely) incoherent. 2) this book was extremely helpful for me, because it helped me see the roots of movements like progressive Christianity. 3) Fletchers writing style was very enjoyable, easy to understand, and easy to process.
I do disagree with Fletcher on the vast majority of what he said. But, the rating isn’t simply because I disagree, it is for a number of factors, some of which are listed above.
I do disagree with Fletcher on the vast majority of what he said. But, the rating isn’t simply because I disagree, it is for a number of factors, some of which are listed above.
July 23, 2024
No thank you.
Situationally I was like, yeah sure. Situational ethics.
Then I defaulted to absolutions.
Forever.
No.
Not about situational ethics.
About this book ethically.
Absolutely, no.
On the no pile with gasoline.
Situationally I was like, yeah sure. Situational ethics.
Then I defaulted to absolutions.
Forever.
No.
Not about situational ethics.
About this book ethically.
Absolutely, no.
On the no pile with gasoline.
April 2, 2016
A must-read. Stimulating, thought provoking and convicting.
October 24, 2021
(Jim Cook’s review). I’m giving this book five stars, not because I accept the arguments made about situational ethics but because of two other reasons: It is extremely well written and it is also clear just what Fletcher is saying and, second, because it is also an extremely thought-provoking work. Anyone interested in discussions about ethics or moral theory would benefit from reading this work.
This 1966 work advocates a kind of Christian utilitarianism. Rather than base its approach upon a Benthamite “felicific calculus” Fletcher proposes what he calls an “agapeic calculus” for making moral decisions. He identifies three general (rather straw-mannish) types of moral theoretical frameworks: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Situationism. The first relies on rules and moral codes to guide action, the second is (says Fletcher) close to modern existentialism which says there are no moral certainties outside of an individuals’ anguished choices, and the third approach he regards as a kind of middle position between the other two.
Theologically, Fletcher sees elements of situational ethics in many other thinkers including (to name only a few): Bruner, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and Tillich - pretty august company indeed. Fletcher also claims that a secular non-Christian example of situation ethics can be found in the ethical thought of Aristotle. In the former, the only fixed law is “love (i.e., agape); in the latter it is something like “self realization.”
One concern with Fletcher’s description of situational ethics is that his approach seems to be willing to provide support for actions that even most utilitarians would be hesitant to accept. Fletcher argues, for example, that “On a vast scale of “agapeic calculus” President Truman made his decision about the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Or, as he says in another part of his book, “A situationist…would be sure to protest that, in principle, even killing ‘innocent’ people might be right.” Note the scare quotes around the word ‘innocent’ - as if no one is really an innocent victim, not even the children who were killed by the atomic bombs dropped on the two Japanese cities.
A second problem with situation ethics, at least as it is developed by Fletcher, is that this approach seems to be unable to appropriately distinguish between different types of morally questionable actions. An advocate of situational ethics sees essentially no difference (in terms of altruistic love or agape) between “…a kamikaze pilot, a patriot hiding in a Boston attic in 1775, or a Viet Cong terrorist walking into a Saigon officer’s mess as he pulls the pin in a bomb hidden under his coat.” Fletcher views all of these various acts as “…examples of selfless, calculating concern for others.” I still can’t wrap my head around this argument!
A third issue with Fletcher’s approach is the latent cultural assumptions the theory carries. Fletcher argues that his approach is simply a method with only one “content” element, agape. But his culture laden prejudices are most clearly seen in a vignette he tells about 18th century America along “the Wilderness Road, or Boone’s Trail.” In setting the scene for the vignette he asks the reader to compare “two episodes in which pioneers were pursued by savages.” Remember, Fletcher (who was also a civil rights advocate for Blacks) was writing in the mid-sixties, but at that time he took for granted that the travellers on the Boone Trail were pioneers rather than colonizers; and, he also took for granted that these travellers might be confronted by “savages” rather than people trying to defend their lives and livelihoods. Further, the two vignettes subsequently discussed only make sense if one assumes that the “savages” were planning to kill everyone in the wagon train, including all the children.
So, situational ethics claims that what’s right or wrong simply depends on the situation - but, crucially, it neglects the key fact that all situations are pre-defined by cultural and historical factors that shape how any situation is perceived. Because it fails to be sensitive to this issue, situation ethics also fails as an ethical theory, in my view.
The book ends with a description of four very interesting “actual cases” of moral dilemmas. I think the book would have benefited from these four dilemmas being in the first chapter of the book to whet the readers’ interest but they also work at the end of the book nearly as well, as he implicitly asks the reader to apply situation ethics to address these moral problems.
I’ve come to realize that moral problems are rather like chess problems. Both can be solved in more than one way - usually. This book is highly recommended to anyone who sees the merit in struggling with moral problems in a thoughtful manner.
This 1966 work advocates a kind of Christian utilitarianism. Rather than base its approach upon a Benthamite “felicific calculus” Fletcher proposes what he calls an “agapeic calculus” for making moral decisions. He identifies three general (rather straw-mannish) types of moral theoretical frameworks: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Situationism. The first relies on rules and moral codes to guide action, the second is (says Fletcher) close to modern existentialism which says there are no moral certainties outside of an individuals’ anguished choices, and the third approach he regards as a kind of middle position between the other two.
Theologically, Fletcher sees elements of situational ethics in many other thinkers including (to name only a few): Bruner, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and Tillich - pretty august company indeed. Fletcher also claims that a secular non-Christian example of situation ethics can be found in the ethical thought of Aristotle. In the former, the only fixed law is “love (i.e., agape); in the latter it is something like “self realization.”
One concern with Fletcher’s description of situational ethics is that his approach seems to be willing to provide support for actions that even most utilitarians would be hesitant to accept. Fletcher argues, for example, that “On a vast scale of “agapeic calculus” President Truman made his decision about the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Or, as he says in another part of his book, “A situationist…would be sure to protest that, in principle, even killing ‘innocent’ people might be right.” Note the scare quotes around the word ‘innocent’ - as if no one is really an innocent victim, not even the children who were killed by the atomic bombs dropped on the two Japanese cities.
A second problem with situation ethics, at least as it is developed by Fletcher, is that this approach seems to be unable to appropriately distinguish between different types of morally questionable actions. An advocate of situational ethics sees essentially no difference (in terms of altruistic love or agape) between “…a kamikaze pilot, a patriot hiding in a Boston attic in 1775, or a Viet Cong terrorist walking into a Saigon officer’s mess as he pulls the pin in a bomb hidden under his coat.” Fletcher views all of these various acts as “…examples of selfless, calculating concern for others.” I still can’t wrap my head around this argument!
A third issue with Fletcher’s approach is the latent cultural assumptions the theory carries. Fletcher argues that his approach is simply a method with only one “content” element, agape. But his culture laden prejudices are most clearly seen in a vignette he tells about 18th century America along “the Wilderness Road, or Boone’s Trail.” In setting the scene for the vignette he asks the reader to compare “two episodes in which pioneers were pursued by savages.” Remember, Fletcher (who was also a civil rights advocate for Blacks) was writing in the mid-sixties, but at that time he took for granted that the travellers on the Boone Trail were pioneers rather than colonizers; and, he also took for granted that these travellers might be confronted by “savages” rather than people trying to defend their lives and livelihoods. Further, the two vignettes subsequently discussed only make sense if one assumes that the “savages” were planning to kill everyone in the wagon train, including all the children.
So, situational ethics claims that what’s right or wrong simply depends on the situation - but, crucially, it neglects the key fact that all situations are pre-defined by cultural and historical factors that shape how any situation is perceived. Because it fails to be sensitive to this issue, situation ethics also fails as an ethical theory, in my view.
The book ends with a description of four very interesting “actual cases” of moral dilemmas. I think the book would have benefited from these four dilemmas being in the first chapter of the book to whet the readers’ interest but they also work at the end of the book nearly as well, as he implicitly asks the reader to apply situation ethics to address these moral problems.
I’ve come to realize that moral problems are rather like chess problems. Both can be solved in more than one way - usually. This book is highly recommended to anyone who sees the merit in struggling with moral problems in a thoughtful manner.
April 27, 2022
I have found that there are certain books that I need to read in order to understand what the writer really wanted to convey to the world. This is one of those books. We all think we know what Situational Ethics is, but is it what Joseph Fletcher thought. Most likely not. Most of the time we leave out the main point, LOVE. WE must love God and humanity, so we know the best loving solution for all situations. Love is the only thing we need to guide us when dealing with our fellow man. Unfortunately, most of us a incapable of that kind of love. Which means we justify our own interests and actions when we do things in any given situation. Figure out what you want, figure out how to justify it, and that should be the end of it. Oh well, maybe someday we will all be the loving, caring creatures that can behave that way.
March 24, 2018
When I started reading the book I was expecting a more Christian ethical theory, therefore I was trying to pick up the specific aspect of you. I was surprised to finish the book and realise that the book had nothing to do with what I was hoping for. The principles of the book are quite straightforward and I believe that any Ethical Theory has some parts of it, but it’s quitting outdated for a today application. It was rather just a very good read because of Fletcher’s well informed writing about epistemology and ontology.
January 21, 2022
Fletcher’s writing is so compelling and sophisticated (but not sophistical or convoluted) and his arguments are surprisingly Socratic, logically consistent, and therefore convincing. He was a progressive in his belief that law should not interfere in the sexual practices of consenting adults, as he was proposing a Christian method of ethics in the 1960s. I would strongly recommend that the atheist who dismisses situation ethics as mystical to read this – even if I believe it to be a little vaguely defined and that Utilitarianism is more pragmatic and holistic.
June 30, 2023
A weird little book that, says, love of family or community trumps ethical norms... like choosing the greater good....
Basically this gave the moral absolutists a meltdown, especially the theological brimstoners....
It's no big deal now, but it rattled the wide ties at the pews.
oddly it sounds like a Scientology book by the title!
---
"I loved the book, because I love The Family."
Al Capone, February 34th, 2036
Basically this gave the moral absolutists a meltdown, especially the theological brimstoners....
It's no big deal now, but it rattled the wide ties at the pews.
oddly it sounds like a Scientology book by the title!
---
"I loved the book, because I love The Family."
Al Capone, February 34th, 2036
August 21, 2022
Good book. I made a lot of annotations, there were various thoughts that really made me understand the ethical and moral judgment that should and could take place in various forms. The book was a good read, with slow pacing at times. I would have appreciated a discussion after the cases.
January 2, 2019
Not always correct. But very well considered.
October 11, 2024
Religious Studies A Level Reading List Book #1
“Love is justice, justice is love” is something more people need to grasp or just hear.
“Love is justice, justice is love” is something more people need to grasp or just hear.
October 5, 2013
Despite the foundation of Christianity and altruism on which Fletcher rests, there was very little about situation ethics (the concept, as differentiated from the book) that I found disagreeable. It calls on every man to make his own moral choices, using full context and the fullest extent of his rational capabilities in every situation, and then to take full responsibility for those choices. It flatly rejects categorical morality, or "legalism" (HERE HRERE!!) and attacks head on the old axiom that "the ends don't justify the means." Another axiom that it flatly refutes is "be good, and let those who will be clever." I've seen this axiom diluted by other writers before, stating that you should be good AND clever, but situation ethics plows the whole concept under, declaring on no uncertain terms that to be good, you MUST be clever. Moral decisions, in other words, must be made by the mind. And furthermore, they must be made by the individual; they cannot be pre-ordained by any rulebook or "grand inquisitioner."
As for the book itself, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised on that score, too. Fletcher attempts to show that situation ethics is a Christian morality, but I agree with all the negative reviews that say that it is clearly NOT. Fletcher quotes one reviewer who says that rejecting his book will not make situation ethics go away, it will merely make it anti-Christian. What he fails to see is any morality that places obedience (in this case, obedience to God) at it's center must be legalist by its very nature. To make your own decisions, rather than simply obeying what God said in the form of the 1o commandments, is anti-Christian, anti-religious.....anti-pious.
I don't care for the biblical/dictionary definition of agape: to love God through all your neighbors. But the way Fletcher uses agape, it becomes quite reasonable. Love and justice are the same, he says, so to be moral you must give each man his due. To use agape, you must treat people with respect, and grant each man his rights. The examples he uses are right to property, to free speech, to assembly, to freedom. This does not sound like some mystical god-centered love; it sounds like basic human decency. Or more bluntly, it sounds like morality.
I wish I could give this book 5 stars. I can't though, because of the standard that Fletcher says we must use for our decisions. When faced with option A versus BCD or E, we must choose whichever will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Collectivism taken to its most extreme and logical conclusion, this slogan can be and has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. He even goes so far as to say that any of the rights previously mentioned can be revoked in the name of this ideal. Sorry, but a right that can be revoked isn't a right. Not to mention that utilitarian extremism is a viciously immoral doctrine in any form.
Still, this books pros far outweigh its cons. It's Christian target audience is right to fear it. It's true followers rest in the camp of freedom.
As for the book itself, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised on that score, too. Fletcher attempts to show that situation ethics is a Christian morality, but I agree with all the negative reviews that say that it is clearly NOT. Fletcher quotes one reviewer who says that rejecting his book will not make situation ethics go away, it will merely make it anti-Christian. What he fails to see is any morality that places obedience (in this case, obedience to God) at it's center must be legalist by its very nature. To make your own decisions, rather than simply obeying what God said in the form of the 1o commandments, is anti-Christian, anti-religious.....anti-pious.
I don't care for the biblical/dictionary definition of agape: to love God through all your neighbors. But the way Fletcher uses agape, it becomes quite reasonable. Love and justice are the same, he says, so to be moral you must give each man his due. To use agape, you must treat people with respect, and grant each man his rights. The examples he uses are right to property, to free speech, to assembly, to freedom. This does not sound like some mystical god-centered love; it sounds like basic human decency. Or more bluntly, it sounds like morality.
I wish I could give this book 5 stars. I can't though, because of the standard that Fletcher says we must use for our decisions. When faced with option A versus BCD or E, we must choose whichever will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Collectivism taken to its most extreme and logical conclusion, this slogan can be and has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities. He even goes so far as to say that any of the rights previously mentioned can be revoked in the name of this ideal. Sorry, but a right that can be revoked isn't a right. Not to mention that utilitarian extremism is a viciously immoral doctrine in any form.
Still, this books pros far outweigh its cons. It's Christian target audience is right to fear it. It's true followers rest in the camp of freedom.
November 8, 2022
0.5 stars [Ethics]
Fletcher is thoroughly informed on the epistemological, ontological and ethical topics that he covers in Situation Ethics. He is also dead wrong. This book reminds me of a line, if you will forgive the crossing of genres, in the popular Harry Potter series: "Brilliant, Snape - once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion." This book is a case in that point.
One of the other two reviewers [on a now-defunct cataloger] said that Fletcher presents ethics subjectively, but he wasn't sure if that was Fletcher's intent. This person couldn't have read the book. It is one of his four stated axioms of Situation Ethics.
To any Christian with a modicum of philosophical or epistemological knowledge, this book will be sickening. Its modus operandi is the redefinition of truth via the redefinition of love.
The book isn't wholly worthless, however. It represents a highly informed, culminative swipe at truth. It is of use to someone already entrenched either in antinomianism or what Fletcher calls "legalism" (actually absolutism or realism); for the latter, it is useful as the epitome of insidious falsehood.
To anyone who doesn't understand ethics, this book will thoroughly confuse, doing nothing toward rectifying that ignorance.
Fletcher is thoroughly informed on the epistemological, ontological and ethical topics that he covers in Situation Ethics. He is also dead wrong. This book reminds me of a line, if you will forgive the crossing of genres, in the popular Harry Potter series: "Brilliant, Snape - once again you've put your keen and penetrating mind to the task and as usual come to the wrong conclusion." This book is a case in that point.
One of the other two reviewers [on a now-defunct cataloger] said that Fletcher presents ethics subjectively, but he wasn't sure if that was Fletcher's intent. This person couldn't have read the book. It is one of his four stated axioms of Situation Ethics.
To any Christian with a modicum of philosophical or epistemological knowledge, this book will be sickening. Its modus operandi is the redefinition of truth via the redefinition of love.
The book isn't wholly worthless, however. It represents a highly informed, culminative swipe at truth. It is of use to someone already entrenched either in antinomianism or what Fletcher calls "legalism" (actually absolutism or realism); for the latter, it is useful as the epitome of insidious falsehood.
To anyone who doesn't understand ethics, this book will thoroughly confuse, doing nothing toward rectifying that ignorance.
July 30, 2013
Despite the fact that I have some situation ethics in the way I understand morality, I found this book very deceptive. Fletcher's attempt at articulating the grand Christian ethic, falls short both in grandeur and Christianity. His ability to navigate the scriptures to present a "it all comes down to the law of love" demonstrates considerable time spent in study. Yet to come away with only a theology of "neighbor love", without the acknowledging the greater theology of loving the Lord first and foremost, suggest an overly "man-centered" religion. Some of his chapters are very well written, but I can't think of many people I would ever recommend this book to.
June 4, 2025
Liberal theologian Fletcher, who was an Anglican theologian, pushed for an ethical outlook based on the Biblical NT agape love, which in a nutshell is Christian love, not brotherly or erotic love, but an overriding concern for others' well-being, guided by Jesus' life as portrayed in Scripture. The idea is laudable but unsustainable in the world today, because of sin throughout humanity, and our inability to see past ourselves without prejudice (brought about by pride, one of the chief sins of humanity). Not recommended due to its shallowness.
August 1, 2007
The book is 40 years old. Its day has passed. Argues that there are no absolute moral laws, except the law to "love God through your neighbor." All laws are contingent upon the circumstances. Basically advocates Christian utilitarianism; so that, the law of love demands that we do what accomplishes the most good for the most people. There are some concepts worth mulling over, but for the most part pretty thin.
January 31, 2013
A landmark book whose influence will outlast the lifetime of its juvenile detractors. It is a balanced and reflective consideration of ethical issues centuries in the making. It is by no means perfect, but it is useful, if for no other reason, as an antidote against Christian excesses. The same ethical rigidity assails us today in Moslem garb. The world is poised for a giant leap backward into the sixteenth century.
January 21, 2016
It is a book that tries to make it easier for humans to make logical choices based on the conditions they find themselves at that time. It's enticing but in the long run, it promotes more harm than good.
September 27, 2012
One of the worst things I've ever read. This is not Christian ethics.
June 3, 2013
An interesting perspective but 'finished' halfway through and it get rather partitive after the 4 working principles. Can be summed up in to one word: agape
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews