Situational Ethics

Situational ethics is the invention of Joseph Fletcher. The basic concept is, “the end justifies the means.” It doesn’t matter what you DO so long as the intended outcome is good. The idea is that if your motives are pure then, the action is immaterial. There is even some biblical backing for this concept. According to 1 Corinthians 4.5, when Jesus returns “He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God” (NIV). God’s praise, according to this verse is in proportion to the motive of the heart and not the action itself.

Let’s take a look at a few moral dilemmas and see how we think we should respond to these. How would someone who believes in situational ethics respond to them?

The Fat Man and the Impending Doom. A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do? What if you are the fat man? What if instead of a fat man, it is a pregnant lady?

The Bomber. A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?

Dangerous Promises. A friend confides to you that he has committed a particular crime and you promise never to tell. Discovering that an innocent person has been accused of the crime, you plead with your friend to give himself up. He refuses and reminds you of your promise. What should you do? In general, under what conditions should promises be broken?

There are some advantages to this ethical system. It is consistent with the biblical modal. Jesus taught to abandon legalism and self-righteousness. We are dead to the law according to Paul. Instead, we are judged by our motives. The Bible is not intended to be a list of do’s and don’ts. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4.12). It is alive and is used for wisdom and discernment and not a simple list.

The problem is that situational ethics is only loosely based on the Bible. Situational ethics suggests that we can defy God’s standards if it will produce a virtuous outcome. The Apostle John said, “This is love for God: to obey his commands” (1 John 5.3). If we are not obeying God, then we are not loving Him and Jesus said that to love God is the greatest commandment.

It seems like there should be some sort of balance. If we discard situational ethics entirely, then we become legalistic. On the other hand if we embrace it entirely, then we defy God’s laws. I think Paul gave Timothy some advice on the matter: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2.15). To rightly handle the word of truth is to discern truth from scripture without legalistically holding to the law. We are called to maintain God’s standards and I think that situational ethics, if used conservatively, can help us to understand that.

Dilemmas from: www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm

Situational Ethics info from: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/situation.htm and http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/situational-ethics.htm