essay about situation ethics

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• What is ethics?
• How is ethics different from morality?
• Why does ethics matter?
• Is ethics a social science?

situation ethics

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Academia - Situation Ethics

situation ethics , in ethics and theology , the position that moral decision making is contextual or dependent on a set of circumstances. Situation ethics holds that moral judgments must be made within the context of the entirety of a situation and that all normative features of a situation must be viewed as a whole. The guiding framework for moral decision making is stated variously as that of acting in the most loving way, to maximize harmony and reduce discord , or to enrich human existence.

(Read Peter Singer’s Britannica entry on ethics.)

Situation ethics was developed by American Anglican theologian Joseph F. Fletcher, whose book Situation Ethics: The New Morality (1966) arose from his objections to both moral absolutism (the view that there are fixed universal moral principles that have binding authority in all circumstances) and moral relativism (the view that there are no fixed moral principles at all). Fletcher based situation ethics on the general Christian norm of brotherly love, which is expressed in different ways in different situations. He applied this to issues of doctrine . For example, if one holds to the absolute wrongness of abortion , then one will never allow for abortion, no matter what the circumstances within which the pregnancy occurs. Fletcher held that such an absolute position pays no attention to the complexity and uniqueness of each situation and can result in a callous and inhumane way of dealing with the problem. On the other hand, if there are no principles at all, then the decision is reduced to nothing more than what one decides to do in the moment, with no real moral implications involved. Rather, Fletcher held, within the context of the complexities of the situation, one should come to the most loving or right decision as to what to do.

Fletcher’s view was influential in Christian communities both in America and Europe for decades, reaching its peak in the 1980s, after which it began to wane. His ethical framework bore strong affinities with the version of pragmatism proposed by the American philosopher, social reformer, and educator John Dewey , who characterized his position as “instrumentalism.” In Dewey’s framework, moral principles are tools or instruments that are used because they work in resolving the conflicts within complex situations in the most harmonious way for all those involved. These principles are experimental hypotheses that are constantly subject to ongoing verification or revision by the demands of the unique conditions of experience. This view is opposed to the absolutist understanding of fixed rules as inherently valid and universally applicable to all situations, there being no exceptions. It also is opposed to the relativist understanding that there are no normative guidelines but only individual judgments concerning particular cases and that there is no moral justification for evaluating one moral claim as being actually superior to another.

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Situationism and Virtue Ethics

Author: Ian Tully Category: Ethics Word Count: 959

The past half century has seen a considerable revival of interest in virtue. Moral philosophers are no longer merely interested in assessing our conduct (e.g., ‘don’t lie!’) or the outcomes we bring about (e.g., more happiness is better!); many now agree that ethics needs to be concerned with our characters, too. What matters isn’t just what we do , but who we are.

In recent years, however, this focus on character has been challenged by empirically-minded philosophers who argue that recent work in experimental psychology reveals that most people don’t possess the kinds of traits which would constitute virtues. This empirical challenge to virtue is the focus of this essay.

1. Situationism

According to a large and well-confirmed body of research going back to the 1920s – which now goes under the label of ‘situationist personality psychology’ or ‘situationism’  – “seemingly insubstantial situational factors have substantial effects on what people do” (Doris 2002: 28).

To illustrate what is meant by ‘situational factors’ consider a classic situationist study, Isen and Levin’s (1972) ‘dime in the phone booth’ experiment. In this experiment, the difference between finding or not finding a dime in a phone booth made a substantial difference in whether individuals chose to help a woman pick up some papers she had just dropped: those who had found the dime were 84% more likely to help the woman out . In other words, a very minor difference in the situation (the presence or absence of a dime) played a significant role in determining behavior.

Such findings are at odds with an intuitive picture of human psychology and behavior which focuses exclusively or primarily on an agent’s character in order to predict and explain his or her behavior. On this view, people behave in the ways that they do largely because of the kinds of people they are: because they are kind or generous or greedy. Situationism challenges this account by revealing the surprising extent to which our behavior is a function of external, situational factors.

Examples are legion. Being in a hurry significantly decreases the likelihood that passersby will stop to help an apparently distressed individual (Darley and Batson 1973). Ambient noises (Matthews and Cannon 1975), ambient smells (Baron 1997), and the presence or absence of other people (Latane and Darley 1970) also modulate helping behavior to a considerable extent. More troublingly, Stanley Milgram (1974) found that the polite but firm insistence of an experimenter could induce many participants to administer potentially lethal shocks to an experimental confederate in another room.

It seems, in short, that whether or not people engage in morally praiseworthy or morally deplorable behavior is to a large extent determined by often very insubstantial features of the situations they find themselves in.

A number of philosophers (Doris 1998, 2002; Harman 1999) have concluded that this evidence spells trouble for traditional accounts of moral character. According to Aristotle, the virtuous agent acts from “firm and unchangeable character”; the agent sees what the situation calls for (i.e., honesty, compassion, courage) and performs that action (Aristotle 1984: 1105a27-b1). In Doris’s terms, the virtuous agent’s character is organized by “robust traits,” that is, traits which issue in behavior that exhibits “consistency across situations,” (Doris 2002: 23). The thought is that in a variety of different situations – i.e., regardless of whether or not he is in a hurry, or in the presence of a good-smelling bakery, or whatever – the, e.g., compassionate agent will, when faced with a circumstance which clearly calls for compassion, act compassionately.

Yet the experimental evidence seems inconsistent with the average person possessing such global traits, given the situational variability it reveals. Of course, one presumably doesn’t always need to behave compassionately in order to merit the term compassion, but certain circumstances seem diagnostic or criterial : if I leave you drowning in a shallow pond, then (all else equal) I’m not compassionate – and likewise if I give you a lethal shock.

In sum, Doris, Harman, and others argue that the experimental evidence is inconsistent with most people possessing the kinds of robust traits implicated in traditional theories of moral character. But if that’s right, then most people lack virtues and vices . At most, what they have are merely “local traits,” for instance, “office party sociability” (Doris 66).

Of course, this evidence is still consistent with a few people possessing global (i.e., non-local) courage, or compassion, or honesty. (Or, conversely, with a few people possessing global vices.) But it does seem to reveal that those global traits are very rare. For most of us, our psychologies are just not adequately described as constellations of such cross-situationally consistent character traits.

2. Responses

Of course, such pessimistic conclusions have been strongly contested, and the debate over the implications of situationist findings for virtue is ongoing. 1

Defenders of virtue ethics have developed a number of replies. One prominent response notes that virtue – full virtue – is, and was always expected to be, rare . Thus, situationist findings merely confirm what we already knew. Yet such a response makes many uneasy, for it reinforces worries that virtue ethics is problematically elitist, advocating as a normative ideal something attainable by only a few (cf. Driver 2001: 54).

Others note that virtue is not merely a matter of behavior – it also concerns what one thinks and feels. Thus, situationist findings are in an important sense incomplete. 2

Critics also worry about the probative value of “one-time performance” data in demonstrating that one does or does not have a given dispositional property (Sreenivasan 2008: 603). After all, we often fail to behave compassionately when we are stressed or tired, but it seems too strong to claim that those occasional failures mean we aren’t compassionate: what is needed, it seems, are iterated trials. 3

Finally, some critics (Snow 2010) have argued that contemporary psychology is not nearly so hostile to robust traits: in fact, understood in the right way, people do in fact possess such traits. Details of all these proposals are unfortunately beyond the scope of this essay.

1 For a very thorough overview, see Miller (2013).

2 But see Doris (2006, 2009) for evidence that such features are also situationally susceptible.

3 See Doris (2002: 71-76) for an anticipation and response to these concerns.

Aristotle. (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle. J. Barnes, ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Baron, J. (1997) “The Sweet Smell of…Helping: Effects of Pleasant Ambient Fragrance on Prosocial Behavior in Shopping Malls,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23: 498-503. 

Darley, J. M. and Batson, C. D. (1973) “From Jerusalem to Jericho: A Study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27: 100-108.

Doris, J. M. (1998) “Persons, Situations, and Virtue Ethics,” Nous 32: 504-30.

———. (2002) Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. (2006) “Out of Character: On the Psychology of Excuses in the Criminal Law,”  Hugh La Follette (Ed.),  Ethics in Practice . Oxford: Blackwell.

Driver, Julia. (2001) Uneasy Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harman, Gilbert (1999) “Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99: 315-31.

Lantane, B. and Darley J. M. (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts.

Matthews, K. E. Jr. and Canon, L. K. (1975) “Environmental Noise Level as a Determinant of Helping Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32: 571-577.

Milgram, Stanley 1974: Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View . New York: Harper and Row.

Miller, Christian. (2013) Character and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Isen, A. M. and Levin, P. F. (1972) “Effects of Feeling Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness,”  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 384-388.

Snow, Nancy. (2010) Virtue as Social Intelligence. New York: Routledge.

Sreenivasan, Gopal. (2008) “Character and Consistency: Still More Errors,” Mind 117: 603-612.

Related Essays

Virtue Ethics  by David Merry

About the Author

Ian recently earned a Ph.D. in philosophy at Washington University in St. Louis. He also holds an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder and a B.A. in philosophy from George Washington University. He is interested in ethics, metaethics, moral psychology, and the philosophy of mind. Aside from philosophy, he likes reading fiction, going to rock concerts, and hiking in the Ozarks.  https://ianmtully.wixsite.com/iantullyphilosophy  

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook , Twitter and subscribe to receive email notice of new essays at the bottom of 1000WordPhilosophy.com

Share this:, 2 thoughts on “ situationism and virtue ethics ”.

• Pingback: Virtue Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: VAR and Virtue | Social Problems Are Like Maths

Comments are closed.

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Situation Ethics summary notes

This page contains summary revision notes for the Situation ethics topic. There are two versions of these notes. Click on the A*-A grade tab, or the B-C grade tab, depending on the grade you are trying to get.

Find the full revision page here.

Situation ethics AO1

• Fletcher rejects the traditional Chrisian approach to ethics which he calls ‘legalism’ -basing ethics on strict rules that have to always be followed.
• Fletcher rejects this because it fails to take the situation into account.
• Fletcher also rejects antinomianism – the view that there are no rules at all – Fletcher rejects this as it leads to moral chaos.
• Fletcher thinks his situation ethics is the middle ground between these extremes.
• It focuses on one guiding principle that is applied to all situations – agape.
• Agape means Christian love – selfless love of your neighbour.
• An action is good or bad depending on whether it has a loving outcome.
• Fletcher elaborated on this with the ‘four working principles’:
• Pragmatism – must take the situation into account
• Personalism – people are more important than rules
• Positivism – putting agape at the centre of ethics must be taken on faith
• Relativism – an action is only right or wrong relative to agape, i.e., depending on whether it has a loving outcome 
• Six fundamental principles: love is the: only intrinsic good, ruling norm of Christian moral decision-making which decides there and then, is what justifies the means, is the same as justice and wills the neighbour’s good whether we like them or not. 
• Conscience – Fletcher doesn’t think conscience is a ‘noun’ – he says it is not a thing that tells you what is good or bad
• Conscience is a verb – the process of figuring out what the loving thing to do is in a situation.

Whether situation ethics grants a dangerous level of autonomy 

• Robinson argues for situation ethics, claiming that humanity has ‘come of age’ (influenced by Bonhoeffer concept of the ‘world come of age’). This means that humanity has become more mature since medieval times.
• In the past, people were less educated and self-controlling. They needed fixed, clear rules to follow.
• However, now people are more civilised and can be trusted to think for themselves more.
• Giving them more autonomy (a person’s ability to act on his or her own values and interests) will increase love without risking stability of society. 
• William Barclay disagrees with this. 
• He says that situation ethics gives people a dangerous amount of freedom because people are not saints.
• Mankind has not yet come of age and still needs the protection of strict laws. 
• If granted freedom to do what they want they wont choose the loving thing, they will choose the selfish or cruel thing to do. 
• This argument suggests that power corrupts.
• Barclay’s argument is successful because there is much evidence in human culture about the corrupting influence of power.
• People are more civilised, but only because of the careful system of law built around them to make being civilised their best interest.
• When we take away laws, people behave terribly. This can be seen during failed states when governments collapse, or when police go on strike as seen in Canada in 1969. 
• Zimbardo’s stanford prison experiment also shows how corrupt people can become by power.
• ‘The lord of the flies’ is literature which powerfully represents the decline in civilised behaviour once laws are taken away.
• So, without external supervision of legalistic morality, humans become corrupt. 
• Fletcher’s theory would lead to antinomianism if implemented because it is too individualistic and subjective.

Fletcher vs sola scriptura

• A strength of Fletcher’s ethics is his liberal view of biblical inspiration.
• Taking the bible literally is unscientific and Fletcher rightly points out that no one manages to live like a literalist.
• However if we interpret the bible, we can’t tell whose interpretation is right.
• So, Fletcher’s approach is to follow the bible’s foundational theme, which is love.
• Traditional Christians – like those who adhere to Martin Luther’s concept of sola scriptura – would argue that Fletcher’s theory is not genuine Christian ethics, because Fletcher has ignored most of the commands in the Bible, focusing only on Agape.
• The Bible is full of other commands – e.g. God says ‘thou shalt not kill’, so Euthanasia would be wrong – God also said thou shalt not commit adultery.
• Yet, Fletcher says killing or adultery are both fine in situations where they have a loving outcome.
• So, Fletcher fails because he claims to be Christian yet does not follow the Bible.
• Fletcher’s liberal approach to the bible is no better off than the approach of trying to interpret it. The themes and paradigms of the bible are also a matter of subjective interpretation.
• Fletcher has not solved the problem of how to interpret the Bible, he has merely kicked the can down the road.
• Situation ethics therefore fails to provide a convincing approach to Christian ethics and ends up sliding into antinomianism due to being subjective.

Whether situation ethics truly represents the ethics of Jesus

• A strength of Fletcher’s situation ethics is that it fits with the approach to ethics taken by Jesus. Jesus overturned rules (like that of Moses’ eye for an eye & life for a life), allowed the breaking of rules (like working on the sabbath) and said that the greatest commandment was to love your neighbours as yourself.
• If one command is greater than another, then it seems like that means it takes priority and thus the lesser rule should be broken if it’s the loving thing to do. Fletcher’s situation ethics is a reasonable interpretation of what Jesus said. It’s hard to see what Jesus could have meant by agape being the greatest commandment except that it was greater than the others which seem to imply taking precedence over them.
• Richard Mouw points out that it makes no sense to reduce Christian ethics to only one of Jesus’ commands when Jesus made other commands too. It makes no logical sense to follow some of Jesus’ commands but not all of them. We either regard him as a source of moral authority or we don’t.   
• Pope Pius XII criticised situation ethics on similar grounds. Christ himself frequently spoke of the importance of following all the commandments. (Matthew 19:17 & John 14:15).  
• Fletcher is therefore unwittingly attacking Christ. Fletcher claims the ends justifies the means, but Romans 3:8 condemns that.
• Furthermore, would Jesus have bothered to make any other commandments if agape is the only one that is ultimately matters? If a commandment is only to be followed when it accords with agape, and should be ignored if it conflicts with agape, then agape is the only commandment you actually need.
• It seems more logical to think that by calling it the ‘greatest’ commandment Jesus meant something else, such as only that it was the one which would be relevant to the most number of situations.

The subjectivity issue

• Love is subjective – everyone has their own view of what is loving.
• It is therefore too unstable a basis for ethics.
• Even some Nazis thought they were doing a loving thing.
• Love might be subjective – but Fletcher is focused on Agape, which is more than just love.
• Agape is Christian selfless love of your neighbour.
• Jesus was very clear that everyone is your neighbour.
• The Nazis were not treating everyone like their neighbour – they were not acting based on agape.
• So, agape is clearly not subjective like love in general is.
• However, C. Hitchens points out that agape is still subjective. loving your neighbour as yourself is only as good if the way you love yourself is good. Furthermore, others might not want to be loved in the way you love yourself. 
• The successful point we can take from Hitchens to critique situation ethics is: the way a person loves themselves is still subjective and therefore so is agape.
• For example, a Nazi might genuinely want to die if they found out they were jewish. That’s the way they ‘love themselves’.
• Six fundamental principles: love is the ultimate good and Christians must follow only love when making moral decisions. You have to do the loving thing regardless of how you feel about people.

Fletcher & Robinson: humanity ‘come of age’

• They argue that humanity has ‘come of age’. This means that humanity has become more mature since medieval times.

Barclay counter-argument

• Although people may seem like they have improved in modern times, if granted freedom to do what they want they wont choose the loving thing, they will choose the selfish or cruel thing to do. 
• Traditional Christians – like those who adhere to sola scriptura – would argue that Fletcher’s theory is not genuine Christian ethics, because fletcher has ignored most of the commands in the Bible, focusing only on Agape.
• Furthermore: Mouw’s critique. Mouw pointed out that Jesus made other commands. It makes no sense for Jesus to have only wanted us to follow the command of agape – then why would Jesus make other commands..?

Fletcher’s defence: liberal view of the Bible

• Fletcher doesn’t think we can follow the Bible literally, but if we interpret it then we can’t tell whose interpretation is right.
• He concludes that the only valid approach to the Bible is to follow its general themes.
• The most consistent theme of the Bible is love – agape.
• So, Fletcher thinks he is following the Bible actually.
• Furthermore, Jesus did say that loving your neighbour as yourself was the ‘ greatest commandment’ – the fact that it’s the ‘greatest’ supports Fletcher’s approach of thinking it takes precedence over all others.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

36 Fletcher’s Situation Ethics

Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher, Ethics for A-Level. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2017, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0125

Fletcher’s Situation Ethics

Every man must decide for himself according to his own estimate of conditions and consequences… 1

People like to wallow or cower in the security of the law . 2

1. Situation Ethics Introduction

In the introduction to The Situation Ethics: The New Morality Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991) develops what he calls an ethical non-system. His book caused a “fire storm” amongst the public because it legitimized the general post-war dissatisfaction with authority. At the time it was written it seemed to make some radical claims such as that it is not wrong to have extramarital sex, to be homosexual, or to have an abortion. All that said, Fletcher’s work is not widely discussed nor respected in philosophical circles. It is badly argued, idiosyncratic and rehashes old ideas.

Although there is the clothing of religion in the book — Fletcher uses religious terms such as “ agápe ” and cites famous theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) — the central ideas do not rely on the truth of any particular religion. As he says his argument has “…nothing special to do with theological…faith” 3

Fletcher calls this ethical “non-system” Situationism and a Bible story will illustrate the general point of the book. In Mark 3:1–6 we are told that Jesus healed a man with a withered hand in the Jewish Temple; an act which we would consider to demonstrate Jesus’s love for all. However, the Pharisees tell him off because he has performed this healing on the Sabbath day and the Jewish law says that no one can work on the Sabbath.

Fletcher’s work is an attempt to show how acts can be morally acceptable even if they go against so-called moral laws (if you’ve read on Aristotle you might already have an answer to this). Fletcher says that Jesus’ act is morally acceptable — despite going against the Jewish law — because he acted to bring about the most love.

2. Fletcher’s Overall Framework

Fletcher says there are two unattractive views in ethics: “ Legalism ” and “ Antinomianism ”, and one attractive view which sits in between them: “ Situationism ”.

Someone who is following the system of Legalism is someone who “blindly” observes moral rules without being sensitive to the situation. Fletcher has in mind a simple minded deontologist who holds that actions are right and wrong irrespective of the consequences. For example, we ought to tell the truth in all situations, even if this means that, say, millions of people die.

Various Christian sects are legalistic; for instance, some might refuse medical help — such as blood transfusions — when someone in their community is ill because they think it is against God’s commands. Or consider an example of Islamic Legalism (obviously, just as in the Christian sect, these are not wholly representative of either religion). In 2002 the religious police of Saudi Arabia refused to let a group of girls escape from a burning building because they were wearing “inappropriate” clothing, which was against the will of Allah. One witness said he saw three policemen “beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya ”. 4 Fifteen girls died.

Antinomianism

The other extreme is Antinomianism (“anti” meaning against; “nominalism” meaning law). This is the view that says that an agent can do whatever he or she wants in a situation. Fletcher calls this an “ existential ” view because it is one that says that people are always free to choose what they want. Any supposed laws and rules limiting the actions of people are simply a way of trying to comfort them because they are scared of absolute freedom. If Antinomianism is right and if an agent believes that something is right, then it is. Antinomianism means the moral agent is erratic and random, is unpredictable, and any decisions taken are ad hoc . There are no laws nor guiding principles, just agents and their conscience and the institutions in which they find themselves.

A Middle Ethics: Situationism

We might think that Legalism and Antinomianism exhaust the possibilities. If we reject moral laws then are not we forced into lawless moral anarchy? Fletcher thinks not.

Fletcher says that there is a moral law, and hence he rejects Antinomianism. But there is only one moral law, so he rejects Legalism. Fletcher’s one moral law is that we ought to always act so as to bring about the most love for the most people (“ Agápē Calculus”). Fletcher’s Situationism is then a teleological theory. It is directed at the consequences that will determine whether an action is right or wrong.

Of course, any teleological theory will ask us to look at the details of the situation; consider where we talk about Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism. So, Fletcher’s view is not unique. What makes his view different is the centrality of “love”, or as he calls it agápē .

Fletcher thinks that there can be moral principles but that these differ from laws . Principles are generalizations which are context-sensitive and which derive from the one law regarding maximizing love. For example, we might have a moral principle that we ought not to murder. This is a principle because we might think in that in general murder is wrong because it does not bring about the most love. However, it is not a law because for Fletcher, murder is not wrong in all situations. This then is similar to the discussion of Rule-Utilitarianism.

For example, a situation might arise where the child of a terrorist would have to be murdered in order to get information to stop a nuclear attack. Fletcher would say that here is a situation where we ought not to follow the principle do not murder but rather do the most loving thing, which in this case turns out to be murder. From the universal law we can only derive principles, not other universal laws. As Fletcher puts it: “we cannot milk a universal from a universal”. 5

This mean that for Fletcher it might, on occasions, be morally acceptable to break the Ten Commandments. In fact, he says something stronger, that in some situations it is our duty to break these commandments. He thinks that there are four working principles of Situationism.

3. The Four Working Principles of Situationism

Principle 1. pragmatism.

The situationalist follows a strategy which is pragmatic . What does that mean? Well it does not mean that Fletcher is a pragmatist. “Pragmatism” is a very specific and well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of John Dewey (1859 – 1952), Charles Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.

What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract (e.g. Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather explores how moral views might play out in each real life situations .

Principle 2: Relativism

Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist. This does not mean he is a relativist in the sense that we can simply choose what is right and wrong rather it is just an appeal for people to stop trying to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This is a very simple, unsophisticated idea, like his ideas on pragmatism, and Fletcher just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we are in.

Principle 3: Positivism

His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but rather is where:

Any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision — not a conclusion. It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic… 6

So when challenged as to how he can justify that the only law is to maximize love, Fletcher will say that he cannot. It is not a result of logic or reasoning, rather it is a decision we take, it is like the “theologian’s faith”.

Principle 4: Personalism

Love is something that is experienced by people . So Personalism is the view that if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the “who” of a situation. Summing up this Fletcher says:

Love is of people, by people, and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved… Loving actions are the only conduct permissible . 7

These then are his “four working principles”: pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism.

4. How to Work out What to Do: Conscience as a Verb not a Noun

For Fletcher “conscience” plays a role in working out what to do. He says “conscience” is a verb and not a noun. This sounds complicated but it really is not.

First consider what he means when he says conscience “is not a noun”. Conscience is not the name of an internal faculty nor is it a sort of internal “moral compass”. This is how people typically think of conscience and it is often portrayed in cartoons with a devil and angel sitting on someone’s shoulder whispering into her ears.

Rather for Fletcher conscience is a verb. Imagine we have heard some bullies laughing because they have sent our friend some offensive texts and we are trying to decide whether or not to check his phone to delete the texts before he does. The old “noun” view of conscience would get us to think about this in the abstract, perhaps reason about it, or ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, a guardian angel etc.

According to Fletcher this is wrong. Instead, we need to be in the situation, and experience the situation, we need to be doing (hence “verb”) the experiencing. Maybe, we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend’s phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand . What our conscience would have us do is revealed when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection.

5. The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics

Fletcher gives six propositions (features) of his theory.

1: Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love, nothing else at all

There is one thing which is intrinsically good, that is good irrespective of context, namely love. If love is what is good, then an action is right or wrong in as far as it brings about the most amount of love. Echoing Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus, Fletcher defends what he calls the:

agapeic calculus , the greatest amount of neighbor welfare for the largest number of neighbors possible. 8

Notice that here he talks about “ welfare ” rather than “love”. Fletcher does this because of how he understands love which, importantly, is not about having feelings and desires. We discuss this below.

2: The ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else

As we have seen in the first proposition, the only way to decide what we ought to do (the ruling norm) is to bring about love. We need to be careful though because for Fletcher “love” has a technical meaning.

By love Fletcher means “ agápē ” — from ancient Greek. Agápē has a very particular meaning. Initially it is easier to see what it is not . It is not the feeling we might have towards friends or family member which is better described as brotherly love ( philēo ). Nor is it the erotic desire we might feel towards others ( érōs ).

Rather agápē is an attitude and not a feeling at all, one which does not expect anything in return and does not give any special considerations to anyone. Agápē regards the enemy in the same way as the friend, brother, spouse, lover. Given our modern context and how people typically talk of “love” it is probably unhelpful to even call it “love”.

Typically people write and think about love as experiencing an intense feeling. In cartoons when a character is in love their hearts jump out of their chest, or people “in love” are portrayed as not being able to concentrate on things because they “cannot stop thinking” about someone.

This is not what love means for Fletcher. In the Christian context agápē is the type of love which is manifest in how God relates to us. Consider Christ’s love in saying that he forgave those carrying out his execution or consider a more modern example. In February 1993, Mrs Johnson’s son, Laramiun Byrd, 20, was shot in the head by 16-year-old Oshea Israel after an argument at a party in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mrs Johnson subsequently forgave her son’s killer and after he had served a 17 year sentence for the crime, asked him to move in next door to her. She was not condoning his actions, nor will she ever forget the horror of those actions, but she does love her son’s killer. That love is agápē.

3: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else

For Fletcher, practically all moral problems we encounter can be boiled down to an apparent tension between “justice” on the one hand and “love” on the other. Consider a recent story:

Trevell Coleman, better known as the rapper G Dep, was a rising star on the New York hip-hop scene and had been signed to P Diddy’s Bad Boy record label. He also had a wife, Crystal, and twin boys.

Yet Trevell, who was brought up a Catholic and always retained his faith, had a terrible secret, as an 18-year-old, he had mugged and shot a man. He never knew what happened to his victim, yet 17 years later, in 2010, he could no longer bear the guilt and went to the police — a step almost unimaginable for someone from the Hip Hop world.

A police search of their cold case files revealed the case of John Henkel — shot and killed in 1993 at exactly the same street corner in Harlem where Trevell says he committed his crime. He is now serving a jail sentence of 15 years to life for Henkel’s murder. Yet he has no regrets; “I wanted to get right with God”, he says.

Trevell’s choice was perhaps hardest to bear for his wife Crystal, who now has to bring up their teenage boys on her own.

This could be expressed as a supposed tension between “love” of family and doing the right thing — “justice”. Fletcher thinks that most other moral problems can be thought of in this way. Imagine we are trying to decide what is the best way to distribute food given to a charity, or how a triage nurse might work in a war zone. In these cases we might put the problem like this. We want to distribute fairly, but how should we do this?

Fletcher says the answer is simple. To act justly or fairly is precisely to act in love. “Love is justice, justice is love”. 9

4: Love wills the neighbor’s good when we like him or not

This is self-explanatory. As we noted above, agápē is in the business of loving the unlovable. So related to our enemies:

Christian love does not ask us to lose or abandon our sense of good and evil, or even of superior and inferior; it simply insists that however we rate them, and whether we like them nor not, they are our neighbors and are to be loved. 10

5: Only the ends justify the means, nothing else

In direct rejection of the deontological approaches Fletcher says that any action we take, as considered as an action independent of its consequences is literally, “meaningless and pointless”. An action, such as telling the truth, only acquires its status as a means by virtue of an end beyond itself.

6: Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

Ethical decisions are not cut and dried most of the time and they exist in a grey area. No decision can be taken before considering the situation. Fletcher gives the example of a women in Arizona who learned that she might “bear a defective baby because she had taken thalidomide”. What should she do? The loving decision was not one given by the law which stated that all abortions are wrong. However, she traveled to Sweden where she had an abortion. Even if the embryo had not been defective according to Fletcher her actions were “brave and responsible and right” because she was acting in light of the particulars of the situation so as to bring about the most love.

6. Problems with Fletcher’s Situationism

Fletcher’s Situationism is a hopelessly confused and confusing moral theory. Fletcher’s work has the annoying tendency to present trivially true claims as if they are profound philosophical insights.

At the most general level, Fletcher commits the fallacy of appealing to authority . This is simply the mistake of thinking that an argument is strengthened by saying that someone else — normally someone in “authority”, holds it.

Fletcher uses many quotations from famous theologians and mentions famous philosophers, such as Aristotle, as a substitute for argument. Unfortunately simply appealing to others is not an argument. To see how useless this approach is consider the following: “Walker’s crisps are healthy because Gary Lineker says so”.

The other concern throughout Fletcher’s work is that he is simply unclear and inaccurate, especially when dealing with the two central ideas: “love” and “situation”.

In some places he talks about love being an “attitude”. In other places he says it is what we ought to bring about as an end point . Which is it? Is it a loving “attitude” in virtue of which we act? Or is it about bringing about certain consequences?

To see why this might be problematic, consider a case where we act out of the attitude of agápē but the consequence is one of great death and destruction. Suppose we act in good “conscience” as Fletcher calls it but our act brings about horrendously dire consequences. According to Fletcher have we done right or wrong? It is not clear.

If he does say that what we did is “wrong” then fine, agápē should not be thought of as an attitude, but rather some feature of consequences. This reading is of course in line with his agápē calculus. Ok, so then imagine the devil acting out of hatred and malice but — due to his lack of knowledge — happens to bring about a vast amount of love in the world. Has the devil acted in the morally right way? If the “ agápē calculus” is used then “yes”. So, according to Fletcher has the devil done the right thing? It is not clear.

Notice it is no good saying “well we cannot decide because it depends on the situation!” Because we have just given you the details of the situation. If you need more information, just make some up and then re-frame the question. So what Fletcher means by “love” is not clear. Nor is what he means by “situation”.

If you were writing a book on Situationism you would expect a clear and extended discussion of these concepts. However, there is no discussion of it in his key text and this is an important omission. To see how thorny the issue actually is consider the following. A politician stands up and says “given the current situation we need to raise taxes”. Our first response is probably going to be “what situation?” The point, simply put, is that there is no obvious way of knowing what is meant by “situation”. What we will choose to consider in any situation will depend on what is motivating us, what our dispositions are, what agendas we have.

Consider a moral example. A terminally ill patient wants to die; given the situation what ought we to do? The point is what does, and does not, get considered in “the situation”, will be dependent on what we already think is important. Do we consider his religious views, the fact that he has three cats which depend on him? What about the type of illness, the type of death, who he leaves behind, the effect it might have on the judicial system, the effect on the medical profession etc.

So then, as a way of actually working out what we ought to do, Fletcher’s prescription that we should “ask what will bring about the most love in the situation” is singularly unhelpful. It seems perfectly plausible that one person might see the situation in one way and someone else see it in another, and hence we get two different claims about what we ought to do. You might think this is OK, on Fletcher’s account. But recall he rejects Antinomianism (Relativism).

It is in fact quite easy to generate lots and lots of worries about Fletcher’s account. This is because his theory is based on a very crude form of Utilitarianism. Have a look where we suggest some problems and simply replace “happiness” with agápē. Here is one example.

Utilitarianism is accused of being counter intuitive. If we could only save our dad or five strangers from drowning, the utilitarian would argue we should save the strangers because five lots of happiness is better than one. But is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?

The situationalist will have exactly the same problem. We might imagine that saving five strangers would bring about more “love” than saving your dad. In which case we ought to save the strangers over your dad. But is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?

You can simply repeat this substitution for most of the problems we cited regarding Utilitarianism, e.g. it being “too demanding” and hence generate a whole host of problems for Fletcher.

We leave you with the following quotation from Graham Dunstan writing in the Guardian, regarding Fletcher’s book:

It is possible, though not easy, to forgive Professor Fletcher for writing his book, for he is a generous and lovable man. It is harder to forgive the SCM Press for publishing it .

Fletcher’s Situational Ethics gained a popular following as it allowed the religious believer to fit their views into the rapidly changing and nuanced moral and political landscape of the 1960s. Fletcher’s position has a central commitment to God’s love —  agápē . It is this central focus on agápē as the moral guide for behavior that allows Fletcher to claim that an action might be right in one context, but wrong in a different context — depending on the level of agápē brought about. In fact, Fletcher thinks that sometimes what might be morally required of us is to break the Ten Commandments.

Despite how popular the theory was it is not philosophically sophisticated, and we soon run into problems in trying to understand it. His position is worth studying though (not just because it is on the curriculum!) because it opens up the conceptual possibility that a committed Christian/Jew/Muslim etc. may consider the answers to moral questions to depend on the diverse situations we find ourselves in.

KEY TERMINOLOGY

Agápē calculus

Consequentialism

Fletcher, Joseph F., Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966).

Kirk, Kenneth E., Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).

‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News (15 March 2002), freely available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

1 K. E. Kirk, Conscience and its Problems , p. 331.

2 J. F. Fletcher, S ituation Ethics .

3 Ibid ., p. 15.

4 ‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

5 J. F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics , p. 27.

6 Ibid . , p. 47.

7 Ibid ., p. 51.

8 Ibid ., p. 95.

9 Ibid ., p. 89.

10 Ibid . , p. 107.

Fletcher’s Situation Ethics Copyright © 2020 by Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher, Ethics for A-Level. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2017, https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0125 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Pros and Cons of Situation Ethics

This essay about situation ethics, a moral theory emphasizing the importance of context in ethical decision-making. It explores the advantages of flexibility and compassion offered by this approach, while also addressing concerns about moral relativism and ethical consistency. By prioritizing love as a guiding principle, situation ethics encourages individuals to consider the unique circumstances of each situation and act with empathy towards others. However, critics argue that its subjective nature may lead to arbitrary judgments and moral ambiguity. Despite these challenges, situation ethics offers a dynamic framework for navigating complex moral dilemmas, balancing contextual assessment with ethical principles.

How it works

Delving into the realm of moral philosophy, we encounter the intriguing concept of situation ethics, a theory advocating for the contextual assessment of ethical decisions rather than rigid adherence to predetermined moral codes. This exploration aims to dissect the merits and demerits of situation ethics, shedding light on its potential implications for moral reasoning and ethical frameworks.

One notable advantage of situation ethics lies in its adaptability and responsiveness to complex moral quandaries. Unlike conventional moral theories, which often prescribe fixed rules or utilitarian calculations, situation ethics urges individuals to evaluate each situation on its own merits.

This flexibility allows for a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to moral decision-making, tailored to the unique circumstances at hand.

Moreover, situation ethics places a strong emphasis on the principle of love as a guiding force in ethical deliberations. By prioritizing empathy and compassion, this ethical framework encourages individuals to prioritize the well-being of others and cultivate positive relationships. Proponents argue that this focus on love fosters a sense of interconnectedness and promotes altruistic behavior, contributing to a more harmonious and compassionate society.

However, situation ethics is not without its critiques. Chief among these is the concern that its emphasis on subjective judgment may lead to moral relativism and ethical inconsistency. Without clear moral principles to guide decision-making, there is a risk of arbitrary or self-serving interpretations of ethical duties. Additionally, the exclusive focus on love as the sole criterion for ethical judgment may overlook other important moral considerations, such as justice and fairness.

Another potential pitfall of situation ethics is its susceptibility to manipulation and abuse. In the absence of objective standards, individuals may invoke situation ethics to justify morally dubious actions or evade accountability for their behavior. This raises questions about the reliability and integrity of moral decision-making within a situationist framework, highlighting the need for ethical guidelines and oversight.

In summary, situation ethics offers a dynamic approach to moral reasoning that prioritizes contextual assessment and compassionate action. While its emphasis on flexibility and empathy holds promise for addressing complex moral dilemmas, concerns about moral relativism and ethical consistency warrant careful consideration. Navigating the terrain of situation ethics requires a balanced approach that integrates empathy with critical reflection, ensuring that moral decisions are both principled and socially responsible.

Cite this page

Pros And Cons Of Situation Ethics. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/pros-and-cons-of-situation-ethics/

"Pros And Cons Of Situation Ethics." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/pros-and-cons-of-situation-ethics/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Pros And Cons Of Situation Ethics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/pros-and-cons-of-situation-ethics/ [Accessed: 11 Jul. 2024]

"Pros And Cons Of Situation Ethics." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed July 11, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/pros-and-cons-of-situation-ethics/

"Pros And Cons Of Situation Ethics," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/pros-and-cons-of-situation-ethics/. [Accessed: 11-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Pros And Cons Of Situation Ethics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/pros-and-cons-of-situation-ethics/ [Accessed: 11-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Vous l’avez sans doute déjà repéré : sur la plateforme OpenEdition Books, une nouvelle interface vient d’être mise en ligne. En cas d’anomalies au cours de votre navigation, vous pouvez nous les signaler par mail à l’adresse feedback[at]openedition[point]org.

Français FR

Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

Nos plateformes

Bibliothèques

Suivez-nous

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

• Open Book Publishers ›
• OBP collection ›
• Ethics for A-Level ›
• Part I. Normative ethics ›

Chapter 5. Fletcher’s Situation Ethics

• Open Book Publishers

Ethics for A-Level

Ce livre est recensé par

Plan détaillé

Texte intégral.

People like to wallow or cower in the security of the law . 1

Every man must decide for himself according to his own estimate of conditions and consequences … 2

1. Situation Ethics Introduction

1 In the introduction to The Situation Ethics: The New Morality Joseph Fletcher (1905 – 1991) develops what he calls an ethical non-system. His book caused a “fire storm” amongst the public because it legitimised the general post-war dissatisfaction with authority. At the time it was written it seemed to make some radical claims such as that it is not wrong to have extramarital sex, to be homosexual, or to have an abortion. All that said, Fletcher’s work is not widely discussed nor respected in philosophical circles. It is badly argued, idiosyncratic and rehashes old ideas.

2 Although there is the clothing of religion in the book — Fletcher uses religious terms such as “ agápe ” and cites famous theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann (1884 – 1976) — the central ideas do not rely on the truth of any particular religion. As he says his argument has “… nothing special to do with theological… faith” 3

3 Fletcher calls this ethical “non-system” Situationism and a Bible story will illustrate the general point of the book. In Mark 3:1 – 6 we are told that Jesus healed a man with a withered hand in the Jewish Temple; an act which we would consider to demonstrate Jesus’s love for all. However, the Pharisees tell him off because he has performed this healing on the Sabbath day and the Jewish law says that no one can work on the Sabbath.

4 Fletcher’s work is an attempt to show how acts can be morally acceptable even if they go against so-called moral laws (if you’ve read Chapter 3 on Aristotle you might already have an answer to this). Fletcher says that Jesus’act is morally acceptable — despite going against the Jewish law — because he acted to bring about the most love.

2. Fletcher’s Overall Framework

5 Fletcher says there are two unattractive views in ethics: “ Legalism ” and “ Antinomianism ”, and one attractive view which sits in between them: “ Situationism ”.

6 Someone who is following the system of Legalism is someone who “blindly” observes moral rules without being sensitive to the situation. Fletcher has in mind a simple minded deontologist who holds that actions are right and wrong irrespective of the consequences. For example, we ought to tell the truth in all situations, even if this means that, say, millions of people die.

7 Various Christian sects are legalistic; for instance, some might refuse medical help — such as blood transfusions — when someone in their community is ill because they think it is against God’s commands. Or consider an example of Islamic Legalism (obviously, just as in the Christian sect, these are not wholly representative of either religion). In 2002 the religious police of Saudi Arabia refused to let a group of girls escape from a burning building because they were wearing “inappropriate” clothing, which was against the will of Allah. One witness said he saw three policemen “beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya ”. 4 Fifteen girls died.

Antinomianism

8 The other extreme is Antinomianism (“anti” meaning against; “nominalism” meaning law). This is the view that says that an agent can do whatever he or she wants in a situation. Fletcher calls this an “ existential ” view because it is one that says that people are always free to choose what they want. Any supposed laws and rules limiting the actions of people are simply a way of trying to comfort them because they are scared of absolute freedom. If Antinomianism is right and if an agent believes that something is right, then it is. Antinomianism means the moral agent is erratic and random, is unpredictable, and any decisions taken are ad hoc . There are no laws nor guiding principles, just agents and their conscience and the institutions in which they find themselves.

A Middle Ethics: Situationism

9 We might think that Legalism and Antinomianism exhaust the possibilities. If we reject moral laws then are not we forced into lawless moral anarchy? Fletcher thinks not.

10 Fletcher says that there is a moral law, and hence he rejects Antinomianism. But there is only one moral law, so he rejects Legalism. Fletcher’s one moral law is that we ought to always act so as to bring about the most love for the most people (“ Agápē Calculus”). Fletcher’s Situationism is then a teleological theory. It is directed at the consequences that will determine whether an action is right or wrong.

11 Of course, any teleological theory will ask us to look at the details of the situation; consider Chapter 1 where we talk about Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism. So, Fletcher’s view is not unique. What makes his view different is the centrality of “love”, or as he calls it agápē .

12 Fletcher thinks that there can be moral principles but that these differ from laws . Principles are generalizations which are context-sensitive and which derive from the one law regarding maximizing love. For example, we might have a moral principle that we ought not to murder. This is a principle because we might think in that in general murder is wrong because it does not bring about the most love. However, it is not a law because for Fletcher, murder is not wrong in all situations. This then is similar to the discussion of Rule-Utilitarianism in Chapter 1.

13 For example, a situation might arise where the child of a terrorist would have to be murdered in order to get information to stop a nuclear attack. Fletcher would say that here is a situation where we ought not to follow the principle do not murder but rather do the most loving thing, which in this case turns out to be murder. From the universal law we can only derive principles, not other universal laws. As Fletcher puts it: “we cannot milk a universal from a universal”. 5

14 This mean that for Fletcher it might, on occasions, be morally acceptable to break the Ten Commandments. In fact, he says something stronger, that in some situations it is our duty to break these commandments. He thinks that there are four working principles of Situationism.

3. The Four Working Principles of Situationism

Principle 1. pragmatism.

15 The situationalist follows a strategy which is pragmatic . What does that mean? Well it does not mean that Fletcher is a pragmatist. “Pragmatism” is a very specific and well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of John Dewey (1859 – 1952), Charles Peirce (1839 – 1914) and William James (1842 – 1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.

16 What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract (e.g. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (see Chapter 2)), but rather explores how moral views might play out in each real life situations .

Principle 2: Relativism

17 Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist. This does not mean he is a relativist in the sense that we can simply choose what is right and wrong rather it is just an appeal for people to stop trying to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This is a very simple, unsophisticated idea, like his ideas on pragmatism, and Fletcher just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we are in.

Principle 3: Positivism

18 His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but rather is where:

Any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision — not a conclusion. It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic… 6

19 So when challenged as to how he can justify that the only law is to maximize love, Fletcher will say that he cannot. It is not a result of logic or reasoning, rather it is a decision we take, it is like the “theologian’s faith”.

Principle 4: Personalism

20 Love is something that is experienced by people . So Personalism is the view that if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the “who” of a situation. Summing up this Fletcher says:

Love is of people, by people, and for people. Things are to be used; people are to be loved… Loving actions are the only conduct permissible . 7

21 These then are his “four working principles”: pragmatism, relativism, positivism and personalism.

4. How to Work out What to Do: Conscience as a Verb not a Noun

22 For Fletcher “conscience” plays a role in working out what to do. He says “conscience” is a verb and not a noun. This sounds complicated but it really is not (for complex and sophisticated discussions of conscience see Chapter 9).

23 First consider what he means when he says conscience “is not a noun”. Conscience is not the name of an internal faculty nor is it a sort of internal “moral compass”. This is how people typically think of conscience and it is often portrayed in cartoons with a devil and angel sitting on someone’s shoulder whispering into her ears.

24 Rather for Fletcher conscience is a verb. Imagine we have heard some bullies laughing because they have sent our friend some offensive texts and we are trying to decide whether or not to check his phone to delete the texts before he does. The old “noun” view of conscience would get us to think about this in the abstract, perhaps reason about it, or ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, a guardian angel etc.

25 According to Fletcher this is wrong. Instead, we need to be in the situation, and experience the situation, we need to be doing (hence “verb”) the experiencing. Maybe, we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend’s phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand . What our conscience would have us do is revealed when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection.

5. The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics

26 Fletcher gives six propositions (features) of his theory.

1: Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love, nothing else at all

27 There is one thing which is intrinsically good, that is good irrespective of context, namely love. If love is what is good, then an action is right or wrong in as far as it brings about the most amount of love. Echoing Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus (see Chapter 1) Fletcher defends what he calls the:

agapeic calculus, the greatest amount of neighbor welfare for the largest number of neighbors possible. 8

28 Notice that here he talks about “ welfare ” rather than “love”. Fletcher does this because of how he understands love which, importantly, is not about having feelings and desires. We discuss this below.

2: The ruling norm of Christian decision is love, nothing else

29 As we have seen in the first proposition, the only way to decide what we ought to do (the ruling norm) is to bring about love. We need to be careful though because for Fletcher “love” has a technical meaning.

30 By love Fletcher means “ agápē ” — from ancient Greek. Agápē has a very particular meaning. Initially it is easier to see what it is not . It is not the feeling we might have towards friends or family member which is better described as brotherly love ( philēo ). Nor is it the erotic desire we might feel towards others ( érōs ).

31 Rather agápē is an attitude and not a feeling at all, one which does not expect anything in return and does not give any special considerations to anyone. Agápē regards the enemy in the same way as the friend, brother, spouse, lover. Given our modern context and how people typically talk of “love” it is probably unhelpful to even call it “love”.

32 Typically people write and think about love as experiencing an intense feeling. In cartoons when a character is in love their hearts jump out of their chest, or people “in love” are portrayed as not being able to concentrate on things because they “cannot stop thinking” about someone.

33 This is not what love means for Fletcher. In the Christian context agápē is the type of love which is manifest in how God relates to us. Consider Christ’s love in saying that he forgave those carrying out his execution or consider a more modern example. In February 1993, Mrs Johnson’s son, Laramiun Byrd, 20, was shot in the head by 16-year-old Oshea Israel after an argument at a party in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mrs Johnson subsequently forgave her son’s killer and after he had served a 17 year sentence for the crime, asked him to move in next door to her. She was not condoning his actions, nor will she ever forget the horror of those actions, but she does love her son’s killer. That love is agápē.

3: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else

34 For Fletcher, practically all moral problems we encounter can be boiled down to an apparent tension between “justice” on the one hand and “love” on the other. Consider a recent story:

Trevell Coleman, better known as the rapper G Dep, was a rising star on the New York hip-hop scene and had been signed to P Diddy’s Bad Boy record label. He also had a wife, Crystal, and twin boys. Yet Trevell, who was brought up a Catholic and always retained his faith, had a terrible secret, as an 18-year-old, he had mugged and shot a man. He never knew what happened to his victim, yet 17 years later, in 2010, he could no longer bear the guilt and went to the police — a step almost unimaginable for someone from the Hip Hop world. A police search of their cold case files revealed the case of John Henkel — shot and killed in 1993 at exactly the same street corner in Harlem where Trevell says he committed his crime. He is now serving a jail sentence of 15 years to life for Henkel’s murder. Yet he has no regrets; “I wanted to get right with God”, he says. Trevell’s choice was perhaps hardest to bear for his wife Crystal, who now has to bring up their teenage boys on her own.

35 This could be expressed as a supposed tension between “love” of family and doing the right thing — “justice”. Fletcher thinks that most other moral problems can be thought of in this way. Imagine we are trying to decide what is the best way to distribute food given to a charity, or how a triage nurse might work in a war zone. In these cases we might put the problem like this. We want to distribute fairly, but how should we do this?

36 Fletcher says the answer is simple. To act justly or fairly is precisely to act in love. “Love is justice, justice is love”. 9

4: Love wills the neighbor’s good when we like him or not

37 This is self-explanatory. As we noted above, agápē is in the business of loving the unlovable. So related to our enemies:

Christian love does not ask us to lose or abandon our sense of good and evil, or even of superior and inferior; it simply insists that however we rate them, and whether we like them nor not, they are our neighbors and are to be loved. 10

5: Only the ends justify the means, nothing else

38 In direct rejection of the deontological approaches Fletcher says that any action we take, as considered as an action independent of its consequences is literally, “meaningless and pointless”. An action, such as telling the truth, only acquires its status as a means by virtue of an end beyond itself.

6: Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

39 Ethical decisions are not cut and dried most of the time and they exist in a grey area. No decision can be taken before considering the situation. Fletcher gives the example of a women in Arizona who learned that she might “bear a defective baby because she had taken thalidomide”. What should she do? The loving decision was not one given by the law which stated that all abortions are wrong. However, she travelled to Sweden where she had an abortion. Even if the embryo had not been defective according to Fletcher her actions were “brave and responsible and right” because she was acting in light of the particulars of the situation so as to bring about the most love.

6. Problems with Fletcher’s Situationism

40 Fletcher’s Situationism is a hopelessly confused and confusing moral theory. Fletcher’s work has the annoying tendency to present trivially true claims as if they are profound philosophical insights.

41 At the most general level, Fletcher commits the fallacy of appealing to authority . This is simply the mistake of thinking that an argument is strengthened by saying that someone else — normally someone in “authority”, holds it.

42 Fletcher uses many quotations from famous theologians and mentions famous philosophers, such as Aristotle, as a substitute for argument. Unfortunately simply appealing to others is not an argument. To see how useless this approach is consider the following: “Walker’s crisps are healthy because Gary Lineker says so”.

43 The other concern throughout Fletcher’s work is that he is simply unclear and inaccurate, especially when dealing with the two central ideas: “love” and “situation”.

44 In some places he talks about love being an “attitude”. In other places he says it is what we ought to bring about as an end point . Which is it? Is it a loving “attitude” in virtue of which we act? Or is it about bringing about certain consequences?

45 To see why this might be problematic, consider a case where we act out of the attitude of agápē but the consequence is one of great death and destruction. Suppose we act in good “conscience” as Fletcher calls it but our act brings about horrendously dire consequences. According to Fletcher have we done right or wrong? It is not clear.

46 If he does say that what we did is “wrong” then fine, agápē should not be thought of as an attitude, but rather some feature of consequences. This reading is of course in line with his agápē calculus. Ok, so then imagine the devil acting out of hatred and malice but — due to his lack of knowledge — happens to bring about a vast amount of love in the world. Has the devil acted in the morally right way? If the “ agápē calculus” is used then “yes”. So, according to Fletcher has the devil done the right thing? It is not clear.

47 Notice it is no good saying “well we cannot decide because it depends on the situation !” Because we have just given you the details of the situation. If you need more information, just make some up and then reframe the question. So what Fletcher means by “love” is not clear. Nor is what he means by “situation”.

48 If you were writing a book on Situationism you would expect a clear and extended discussion of these concepts. However, there is no discussion of it in his key text and this is an important omission. To see how thorny the issue actually is consider the following. A politician stands up and says “given the current situation we need to raise taxes”. Our first response is probably going to be “what situation?” The point, simply put, is that there is no obvious way of knowing what is meant by “situation”. What we will choose to consider in any situation will depend on what is motivating us, what our dispositions are, what agendas we have.

49 Consider a moral example. A terminally ill patient wants to die; given the situation what ought we to do? The point is what does, and does not, get considered in “the situation”, will be dependent on what we already think is important. Do we consider his religious views, the fact that he has three cats which depend on him? What about the type of illness, the type of death, who he leaves behind, the effect it might have on the judicial system, the effect on the medical profession etc.

50 So then, as a way of actually working out what we ought to do, Fletcher’s prescription that we should “ask what will bring about the most love in the situation” is singularly unhelpful. It seems perfectly plausible that one person might see the situation in one way and someone else see it in another, and hence we get two different claims about what we ought to do. You might think this is OK, on Fletcher’s account. But recall he rejects Antinomianism (Relativism).

51 It is in fact quite easy to generate lots and lots of worries about Fletcher’s account. This is because his theory is based on a very crude form of Utilitarianism. Have a look at Chapter 1 where we suggest some problems and simply replace “happiness” with agápē. Here is one example.

52 Utilitarianism is accused of being counter intuitive. If we could only save our dad or five strangers from drowning, the utilitarian would argue we should save the strangers because five lots of happiness is better than one. But is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?

53 The situationalist will have exactly the same problem. We might imagine that saving five strangers would bring about more “love” than saving your dad. In which case we ought to save the strangers over your dad. But is not it admirable and understandable to save a loved one over strangers?

54 You can simply repeat this substitution for most of the problems we cited regarding Utilitarianism, e.g. it being “too demanding” and hence generate a whole host of problems for Fletcher.

55 We leave you with the following quotation from Graham Dunstan writing in the Guardian, regarding Fletcher’s book:

It is possible, though not easy, to forgive Professor Fletcher for writing his book, for he is a generous and lovable man. It is harder to forgive the SCM Press for publishing it .

SUMMARY Fletcher’s Situational Ethics gained a popular following as it allowed the religious believer to fit their views into the rapidly changing and nuanced moral and political landscape of the 1960s. Fletcher's position has a central commitment to God’s love — agápē . It is this central focus on agápē as the moral guide for behaviour that allows Fletcher to claim that an action might be right in one context, but wrong in a different context — depending on the level of agápē brought about. In fact, Fletcher thinks that sometimes what might be morally required of us is to break the Ten Commandments. Despite how popular the theory was it is not philosophically sophisticated, and we soon run into problems in trying to understand it. His position is worth studying though (not just because it is on the curriculum!) because it opens up the conceptual possibility that a committed Christian/Jew/Muslim etc. may consider the answers to moral questions to depend on the diverse situations we find ourselves in.

COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES

• Mixing up Fletcher’s use of “Positivism” with Ayer’s use of “positivism”.
• Thinking that Fletcher’s is a “pragmatist”.
• Think that situation ethics allows you do to anything you want.
• Think that love is about feelings.
• Think that by “conscience” Fletcher means a “moral compass”.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER

• Why do you think Fletcher’s book was so popular at the time of publication?
• If an alien visited earth and asked “What is love?” how would you answer them?
• How does Situationism differ from “Utilitarianism” if at all?
• If we act from love, does that mean we can do anything?
• What does it mean to say that conscience is a verb rather than a noun? Do you think we have a conscience? If you do, should we think of it as a verb or a noun?
• Why does Fletcher say that his theory is: “fact-based, empirical-based, data-conscious and inquiring”?
• What do you think a Christian would make of Fletcher’s theory?
• What do you think “situation” means?
• What does Fletcher mean by “positivism”?
• What is the “fallacy of appealing to authority”? Can you give your own example?
• Pick one challenge to Utilitarianism, and reform the challenge as one towards Situationism.

KEYTERMINOLOGY Agápē Agápē calculus Eros Legalism Pragmatic Conscience Consequentialism

Bibliographie

Fletcher, Joseph F., Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1966).

Kirk, Kenneth E., Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999).

‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News (15 March 2002), freely available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

Notes de bas de page

1 JF. Fletcher, Situation Ethics .

2 K.E. Kirk, Conscience and its Problems , p. 331.

3 Ibid ., p. 15.

4 ‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

5 J.F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics , p. 27.

6 Ibid., p. 47.

7 Ibid. , p. 51.

8 Ibid. , p. 95.

9 Ibid. , p. 89.

10 Ibid. , p. 107.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Altering Eye

Contemporary International Cinema

Robert Phillip Kolker

Les Bienveillantes de Jonathan Littell

Murielle Lucie Clément (dir.)

The End of the World

Apocalypse and its Aftermath in Western Culture

Maria Manuel Lisboa

Economic Fables

Ariel Rubinstein

Coleridge’s Laws

A Study of Coleridge in Malta

Barry Hough et Howard Davis

Brownshirt Princess

A Study of the “Nazy Conscience”

Lionel Gossman

The End and the Beginning

The Book of My Life

Hermynia Zur Mühlen

Bourdieu and Literature

John R. W. Speller

Telling Tales

The Impact of Germany on English Children’s Books 1780-1918

David Blamires

That Greece Might Still Be Free

The Philhellenes in the War of Independence

William St Clair

The Theatre of Shelley

Jacqueline Mulhallen

Henry James's Europe

Heritage and Transfer

Dennis Tredy, Annick Duperray et Adrian Harding

Accès ouvert freemium

PDF du chapitre

Édition imprimée

Merci, nous transmettrons rapidement votre demande à votre bibliothèque.

Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books . Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

Le captcha ne correspond pas au texte.

Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

Référence numérique du chapitre

Référence numérique du livre

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

RE A Level FULL MARKS A* Situation Ethics (Exemplar Essay)

Subject: Religious education

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Unit of work

Last updated

29 March 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

A Level RE, Philosophy and Ethics . OCR Year One Ethics, Fletcher’s Situation Ethics .

‘The concept of agape gives no help at all in moral decision-making’. Discuss (40)’

Essay achieved 40/40, full marks, A*. Excellent exemplar essay for Situation Ethics critical evaluation, both AO1 knowledge in detail and depth, as well as AO2 scholars/critics and evaluation.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Situation Ethics

Tutors and online course available now.

Tutoring and Online Course for A level students, with both content and training in A grade writing skills

Home — Blog — Topic Ideas — 200 Ethical Topics & Questions to Debate in Essay

200 Ethical Topics & Questions to Debate in Essay

Ethical topics and questions are essential for stimulating thoughtful discussions and deepening our understanding of complex moral landscapes. Ethics, the study of what is right and wrong, underpins many aspects of human life and societal functioning. Whether you're crafting an essay or preparing for a debate, delving into ethical issues allows you to explore various perspectives and develop critical thinking skills.

Ethical issues encompass a wide range of dilemmas and conflicts where individuals or societies must choose between competing moral principles. Understanding what are ethical issues involves recognizing situations that challenge our values, behaviors, and decisions. This article provides a thorough guide to ethical topics, offering insights into current ethical issues, and presenting a detailed list of questions and topics to inspire your writing and debates.

Ethical Issues Definition

Ethical issues refer to situations where a decision, action, or policy conflicts with ethical principles or societal norms. These dilemmas often involve a choice between competing values or interests, such as fairness vs. efficiency, privacy vs. security, or individual rights vs. collective good. Ethical issues arise in various fields, including medicine, business, technology, and the environment. They challenge individuals and organizations to consider the moral implications of their actions and to seek solutions that align with ethical standards. Understanding ethical issues requires an analysis of both the potential benefits and the moral costs associated with different courses of action.

⭐ Top 10 Ethical Topics [2024]

• Climate Change Responsibility
• Data Privacy in the Digital Age
• Genetic Engineering
• Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• AI and Automation
• Animal Rights
• Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech
• Healthcare Accessibility
• Human Rights in the Age of Globalization

Ethics Essay Writing Guide

Writing an ethics essay involves more than just presenting facts; it requires a thoughtful analysis of moral principles and their application to real-world scenarios. Understanding ethical topics and what constitutes ethical issues is essential for crafting a compelling essay. Here’s a guide to help you address current ethical issues effectively:

• Choose a Clear Topic: Select an ethical issue that is both interesting and relevant. Understanding the definition of ethical issues will help you narrow down your choices.
• Research Thoroughly: Gather information from credible sources to support your arguments. Knowing what ethical issues are and how they are defined can provide a solid foundation for your research.
• Present Multiple Perspectives: Show an understanding of different viewpoints on the issue. This will demonstrate your grasp of the complexity of current ethical issues.
• Use Real-world Examples: Illustrate your points with concrete examples. This not only strengthens your arguments but also helps to explain ethical topics in a relatable way.
• Structure Your Essay: Organize your essay with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. A well-structured essay makes it easier to present your analysis of ethical issues.
• Provide a Balanced Argument: Weigh the pros and cons to offer a well-rounded discussion. Addressing various aspects of current ethical issues will make your essay more comprehensive.
• Conclude Thoughtfully: Summarize your findings and reflect on the broader implications of the issue. This is where you can discuss the impact of ethical issues on society and future considerations.

By following this guide, you will be able to write an ethics essay that not only presents facts but also offers a deep and nuanced analysis of ethical topics.

Selecting the Right Research Topic in Ethics

Choosing the right research topic in ethics can be challenging, but it is crucial for writing an engaging and insightful essay. Here are some tips:

• Relevance: Ensure the topic is relevant to current societal issues.
• Interest: Pick a topic that genuinely interests you.
• Scope: Choose a topic with enough scope for research and debate.
• Complexity: Aim for a topic that is complex enough to allow for in-depth analysis.
• Availability of Sources: Make sure there are enough resources available to support your research.

What Style Should an Ethics Essay Be Written In?

When writing an ethics essay, it is essential to adopt a formal and objective style. Clarity and conciseness are paramount, as the essay should avoid unnecessary jargon and overly complex sentences that might obscure the main points. Maintaining objectivity is crucial; presenting arguments without bias ensures that the discussion remains balanced and fair. Proper citations are vital to give credit to sources and uphold academic integrity.

Engaging the reader through a logical flow of ideas is important, as it helps sustain interest and facilitates a better understanding of the ethical topics being discussed. Additionally, the essay should be persuasive, making compelling arguments supported by evidence to effectively convey the analysis of moral issues. By following these guidelines, the essay will not only be informative but also impactful in its examination of ethical dilemmas.

List of Current Ethical Issues

• The impact of social media on privacy.
• Ethical considerations in genetic cloning.
• Balancing national security with individual rights.
• Privacy concerns in the digital age.
• The ethics of biohacking.
• Ethical considerations in space exploration.
• The ethics of surveillance and data collection by governments and corporations.
• Ethical issues in the use of facial recognition technology.
• The ethical implications of autonomous vehicles.
• The morality of animal testing in scientific research.
• Ethical concerns in the gig economy.
• The impact of climate change on ethical business practices.
• The ethics of consumer data usage by companies.
• Ethical dilemmas in end-of-life care and assisted suicide.
• The role of ethics in the development of renewable energy sources.

Ethical Issues in Psychology

• Confidentiality vs. duty to warn in therapy.
• Ethical dilemmas in psychological research.
• The use of placebo in psychological treatment.
• Ethical issues in the treatment of vulnerable populations.
• The ethics of involuntary commitment and treatment.
• Dual relationships and conflicts of interest in therapy.
• The use of deception in psychological experiments.
• The ethics of cognitive enhancement drugs.
• Ethical considerations in online therapy and telepsychology.
• Cultural competence and ethical practice in psychology.
• The ethics of forensic psychology and assessment.
• The impact of social media on mental health and ethical practice.
• The use of emerging technologies in psychological treatment.
• Ethical issues in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders.
• The role of ethics in psychological testing and assessment.

Ethical Debate Topics

• Is capital punishment morally justified?
• Should organ donation be mandatory?
• The ethics of artificial intelligence in warfare.
• Is euthanasia ethically permissible?
• Should human cloning be allowed?
• The morality of animal rights vs. human benefit.
• Is it ethical to use animals for entertainment?
• Should there be limits on free speech?
• The ethics of genetic modification in humans.
• Is it ethical to have mandatory vaccinations?
• The morality of government surveillance programs.
• Should assisted reproductive technologies be regulated?
• The ethics of using performance-enhancing drugs in sports.
• Should healthcare be considered a human right?
• The ethical implications of wealth inequality and redistribution.

Medical Ethics Topics

• Ariel Case Study: a Comprehensive Analysis
• The Case for and Against Daylight Saving Time
• Technological Advancements in Medical, Educational & Other Fields
• The Language of Medicine
• Medical Ethics: Beneficence and Non-maleficence
• Overview of What Sonography is
• The Use of Steroids and HGH in Sports
• Media and The Scientific Community Treat People Like Tools
• Informative Speech for Organ Donation
• Medicine in Our World
• The Origin of Medical Terminology
• Preserving Sight: My Journey to Becoming an Optometrist
• Case of Dr. Eric Poehlman's Ethical Violation
• Should The NHS Treat Patients with Self-Inflicted Illnesses
• My Education as a Medical Technologist

Ethics Essay Topics on Business

• Ethics Report on Panasonic Corporation
• Case Study on The ACS Code of Morals
• Differences in Business Ethics Among East Asian Countries
• Business Ethics in Sports
• Business Ethics in Different Countries, and Its Importance
• Selfless Service and Its Impact on Social Change
• Challenges in Doing Business Across The Border
• The Importance of Ethics in Advertising
• Ethical Issues that Businesses Face
• Profitability of Business Ethics
• The Law and Morality in Business
• How Ethnic Variances Effect Worldwide Business
• The Ethical Practices in The Business Sector in the Modern Economy
• Key Responsibilities and Code of Ethics in Engineering Profession
• Analysis of The Code of Ethics in Walmart

Ethics Essay Topics on Environment

• Understanding The Importance of Keeping Animals Safe
• The Importance of Treating Animals with Respect
• CWU and The Issue of Chimpanzee Captivity
• The Process of Suicidal Reproduction in the Animal World
• Analysis of The Egg Industry to Understand The Causes of The High Prices in Eggs
• The Dangers of Zoos
• Importance for Animals to Be Free from Harm by Humans
• Should Animals Be Killed for The Benefit of Humans
• Reasons Why Genetic Engineering Should Be Banned
• What I Learned in Ethics Class: Environmental Ethics
• Nanotechnology and Environment
• Review of The Environmental Protection Act
• How The Idea of Preservation of Nature Can Benefit from Environmental Ethics
• The Relation and Controversy Between American Diet and Environmental Ethics
• Green Technology

Work Ethics Essay Topics

• The impact of workplace surveillance on employee privacy.
• Ethical considerations in remote work.
• Discrimination in the workplace.
• An Examination of Addiction to Work in The Protestant Work Ethic
• The Work Ethic of The Millennials
• My Understanding of The Proper Environment in the Workplace
• Social Responsibility & Ethics Management Program in Business
• The Maternity Benefits Act, 1961
• The Issue of Stealing in The Workplace
• Chinese Work Management and Business Identity
• Ethical Issues of Using Social Media at the Workplace
• The Teleological Ethical Theories
• Learning Journal on Ethical Conflicts, Environmental Issues, and Social Responsibilities
• Social Media at Workplace: Ethics and Influence
• Ethical Issue of Employees Stealing and Whistleblowing

Ethics Essay Topics on Philosophy

• A Critical Analysis of Ethical Dilemmas in Education and Beyond
• Overview of What an Ethical Dilemma is
• The Implications of Exculpatory Language
• Ethical Dilemmas in End-of-life Decision Making
• What I Learned in Ethics Class: Integrating Ethics in Aviation
• Doing What is Right is not Always Popular: Philosophy of Ethics
• An Analysis of Public Trust and Corporate Ethics
• Ethical Concerns of Beauty Pageants
• Simone De Beauvoir’s Contribution to Philosophy and Ethics
• The Impact on Decision-making and Life Choices
• Importance and Improvement of Personal Ethics
• Personal Ethics and Integrity in Our Life
• Analysis of The Philosophical Concept of Virtue Ethics
• Understanding Moral Action
• How to Become a Gentleman
• A Call for Emphasis on Private Morality and Virtue Teaching
• A Positive Spin on Ethical Marketing in The Gambling Industry
• An Overview of The Ethical Dilemma in a Personal Case
• Bioethical Principles and Professional Responsibilities
• Ethical Considerations in Counseling Adolescents
• Ethical Dilemma in College Life
• Ethical Theories: Deontology and Utilitarianism
• Issues of Fraud, Ethics, and Regulation in Healthcare
• Navigating Ethical Dimensions in Education
• The Ethical Landscape of Advanced Technology
• Research Paper on The Ethical Issue of Publishing The Pentagon Papers
• The Trolley Problem: an Ethical Dilemma
• Analysis of "To The Bitter End" Case Study
• Ethical Theories: Virtue and Utilitarian Ethics
• Feminist Ethics: Deconstructing Gender and Morality
• Is Deadpool a Hero Research Paper
• My Moral and Ethical Stance
• The Concept of Ethics and The Pursuit of Happiness
• The Ethics of Graphic Photojournalism
• The Quintessence of Justice: a Critical Evaluation of Juror 11's Role
• The Wolf of Wall Street: Ethics of Greed
• The Importance of Ethics in Our Daily Life
• Analysis of The Envy Emotion and My Emotional Norms
• The Topic of Animal Rights in Relation to The Virtue Theory

Ethics Essay Topics on Science

• The Cause of Cancer as Illustrated in a Bioethics Study
• Bioethical Issues Related to Genetic Engineering
• Ethical Issues in Stem Cell Research
• The Role of Ethics Committees in Biomedical Research
• The Legal and Bioethical Aspects of Personalised Medicine Based on Genetic Composition
• The Ethics of Clinical Trials: Ensuring Informed Consent and Patient Safety
• Ethical Challenges in Neuroethics: Brain Privacy and Cognitive Liberty
• Gene Therapy: Ethical Dilemmas and Social Implications
• Overview of Bioethics The Trigger of Contentious Moral Topics
• The Progression of Bioethics and Its Importance
• The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Medical Ethics
• The Drawbacks of Free Healthcare: Economic, Quality, and Access Issues
• Bioethical Issues in My Sister’s Keeper: Having Your Autonomy Taken to Save Your Sibling
• The Ethics of Biotechnology in Agriculture: GMOs and Food Safety
• Ethical Considerations in Organ Donation and Transplantation

List of Ethical Questions for Students

Exploring ethical topics is crucial for students to develop critical thinking and moral reasoning. Here is a comprehensive list of ethical questions for students to discuss and debate. These topics cover a wide range of issues, encouraging thoughtful discussion and deeper understanding.

Good Ethical Questions for Discussion

• Is it ethical to eat meat?
• Should parents have the right to genetically modify their children?
• Is it ever acceptable to lie?
• Should schools monitor students' social media activity?
• Is it ethical to use animals in scientific research?
• Should companies be allowed to patent human genes?
• Is it right to impose cultural values on others?
• Should the government regulate internet content?
• Is it ethical to have designer babies?
• Should wealthy countries help poorer nations?
• Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?
• Should there be limits to freedom of speech?
• Is it right to use artificial intelligence in decision-making?
• Should we prioritize privacy over security?
• Is it ethical to manipulate emotions through advertising?

Moral Questions to Debate

• Is genetic modification in humans ethical?
• Should vaccinations be mandatory?
• Is government surveillance justified?
• Is it ethical to use performance-enhancing drugs in sports?
• Is wealth inequality morally acceptable?
• Should education be free for everyone?
• Is it ethical to allow autonomous robots to make life-and-death decisions?

Ethical topics and questions are a rich field for exploration and discussion. Examining these issues, we can better understand the moral principles that guide our actions and decisions. Whether you're writing an essay or preparing for a debate, this comprehensive list of ethical topics and questions will help you engage with complex moral dilemmas and develop your critical thinking skills.

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .