Book Review: Joseph F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (1966)
Situation Ethics was a highly influential theological work by Thomas F. Fletcher. It was the source of the term “situational ethics” and argued Christian ethics and the Bible support judging our moral actions solely based on love rather a legalistic approach to morality. The book caused a fire storm because it opposed traditional Christian morality and supported left-leaning views during the turbulent 1960s.
Fletcher attended Berkeley Divinity School and Yale University Theological Program and was ordained as an Episcopal minister, but he remained an academic throughout his life. He taught at the Episcopal Divinity School at Cambridge and at the Harvard Divinity School until 1970, when he became professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia. For his work on medical ethics, including his support of eugenics, he was named the Humanist of the Year in 1974. Prior to his death in 1991, he had become a self-proclaimed atheist.
Situation Ethics begins by identifying three approaches to morality – legalism, which is based on blindly following rules of right and wrong even when it hurts other people; antinomianism, which he identified with moral relativism or the existential belief that people invent a personal morality in the face of uncertainty; and situationism, which is the application of moral principles to individual circumstances based on a pragmatic and personal application of love. This is what he calls the “agapeic calculus” – to act in such a way as to apply the greatest amount of love (agape) for the most people.
Fletcher’s idea of love is that it is intrinsically good, the norm of Christian behavior, results in justice, is not the same as liking, justifies all means, and should decide Christian actions. His focus on love as the universal end comes from the definition of agape, Jesus’s statement that all of the law hangs on loving God and our neighbors (Mt. 22:34-40), and Paul’s definition of love in 1 Cor. 13:4-9. He argued that justice and love are really the same, justice being distributed love. His one law was, “Only the end justifies the means; nothing else,” or that without an end, actions become meaningless. He argued that love answers three of the major questions about moral action: why, who, and what, leaving us to decide the when, where, which, and how, which are all situational.
Fletcher provides numerous examples of how to apply situational ethics, and it’s here that he was most shocking. Among the many examples he used were abortion, sexuality, adultery, race riots, espionage, and war. In all cases, he observed how it becomes possible to justify any action provided that it benefits people. This makes it easy to see why the book was so popular among left-leaning Christians, who argued that loving others justified any action. The question is whether situational ethics are a useful approach to determining moral action, or are they simply an excuse used to justify immoral actions?
Despite the great erudition of the book – Fletcher quotes from dozens of religious, philosophical, and political sources to support his views – Situation Ethics was not highly respected in philosophical or religious circles but held primarily a popular appeal. The reason for this is not hard to see. As a work of theology, it is mostly a collection of opinions and has very little scriptural basis. As a work of philosophy, it is poorly argued and contains vague and contradictory definitions of terms. As a book of ethics, it is unhelpful in guiding behavior since it relies on a definition of love that each person defines for themselves. Yet it provides justification for the traditionally immoral actions of some Christians.
One of the more serious definitional problems is how Fletcher defines justice – giving to each person what is due them. Since we owe our neighbors love, “justice is love, love is justice.” The problem is the assumption that we deserve only good rather than the Pauline recognition that “none are righteous” and “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 3:10, 6:23). In short, if given justice, we will receive nothing but death and hell; only God’s love saves us from what we actually deserve. This kindness is what leads to repentance. While Fletcher sees doing justice to others as approaching with eyes wide open to their needs, traditional western interpretation is that justice must be blind to be fair and unbiased.
However, the major problem with Situation Ethics is its lack of rigorous logic in trying to enforce an ethic that changes over time. If the end is the only thing that matters, what happens when you forget about your end, when your end changes, or when you have no end? It is a common tactic among reformers to continually move the goal post to require continued reform. In this imperfect life, perfect love exists only in God. Can we then justify unethical means if we will never achieve our ends? Another major logical challenge is when our means become so harmful the ends cannot be justified. Can murder be justified in the name of love? Can stealing bread from a poor man be justified to feed a hungry man? Can destroying the property of minorities justify rioting in the name of justice? In such cases, the ends do not justify the means.
It is important for students of theology to know the arguments in Situation Ethics. It remains a highly influential book, and many liberal Christians continue to use its arguments to justify immoral actions to achieve their ends. Yet they should also be aware of the logical problems with how Fletcher would have us apply situational ethics. In the end, we must rely on the Word of God to determine correct behavior and not merely a vague, feel-good, and subjective definition of love.
