#joseph fletcher

[drone-reference]

A collection of highlights from my year as a drone operator. Shot primarily in California using the DJI Inspire 2 and Phantom 4 Pro

[principleofplenitude]

[b-ookends]

Situation Ethics summary.

What is it?

Is a relativistic theory - rejects absolutes such as ‘always’ and ‘never’ - views each situation as unique and thus requiring different consideration/moral actions to be taken, as ‘for the situationist there are no rules - none at all’ (Fletcher).

Is also teleological/consequentialist - ethics concerned with nature and purpose. + believes that the consequences of an action are far more important than the action itself.

Fletcher created this theory in his 1966 work ‘Situation Ethics’ in which he argued that legalistic ethics were far too prescriptive and antinomianism was just as ineffective, often resulting in complete chaos.

Instead he sought a middle-way, ‘situationism’. 

He claimed that the right thing to do in any situation is the most loving thing. It’s the ‘idea that people should base moral decisions on what is the most loving thing to do’ (Fletcher).

He was inspired by his cab driver, whose family always voted Republican, however he didn’t seem to think this was right. He said “sometimes you just gotta put your principles to one side and do the right thing”.

The meaning of love.

Fletcher was heavily inspired by ‘agape’, the idea of unconditional, selfless Christian love, which can be found within the Bible (it is regularly enforced) - examples include the notion that ‘greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (John).

MLK Jr. said agape was “creative, redemptive goodwill to all men”. Agape reflects God’s love for humanity and the kind of love that we should have for our neighbours. 

Fletcher recognised that love was hard to define as it was a combination of reason, emotion and action.

He upheld the view of St. Paul, that it ‘bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things’ (Corinthians).

and of St. Augustine, that ‘we do not ask in what he believes in or in what he hopes, but rather, what does he love?’

Many people also think that love is not only a kind and vital thing, but a duty of humanity. 

St Paul said that love was the ‘fulfillment of the law’, while Archbishop William Temple claimed: ‘There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’’.

The four working principles.

Pragmatism - the action must be practical and likely to work in real life.

Relativism - all situations are considered on there own, unique merits, irrespective of what has been done in the past. Difference circumstances always create exceptions. People are free to do as they like, but they must always act in a way which is consistent with the law of love.

Personalism - the person must be put first. The question to ask is ‘what is the greatest assistance to people?’ “Man was not made for the Sabbath” - Jesus.

Positivism - love must always be the most important concern. For Christians, this means accepting the claim that ‘God is love’ and following the Bible’s teaching.

The six fundamental principles.

Love is the only intrinsic good. It is intrinsically valuable and has inherent worth, other things are only extrinsically good/valuable.

Love is the ruling norm of decision making. It replaces the law and the law should only be obeyed in the interests of love. Jesus said that the entire law requires us to love God and love your neighbour.

Love requires us to do good to our neighbour. 

Only the end (love) justifies the means. If an action causes harm then it is wrong, if it causes good then it is right.

Love and justice are the same: love is justice distributed. There can be no justice without love - there would be no injustice if love was properly shared out.

Love acts there and then (it works situationally, not prescriptively).

Strengths.

Easy to understand.

It’s flexible and gives individuals the freedom to apply it to their own individual circumstances. + enables people to respond emotionally and rationally, rather than just acting according to proscribed rules. Takes into account the complexities of human life.

Love is a fundamental part of many religious and non-religious moral systems.

Love always seeks the well-being of others: it is a selfless force.

This theory is liberal and has adapted with the times - for example doesn’t condemn issues that other ethical codes might, such as homosexuality or polygamy etc.

People are able to make their own individual moral decisions regardless of what has been done in the past.

‘Fletcher’s approach is the only ethic for ‘man come of age’. To resist his approach in the name of religion will only ensure the form it takes will be anti-Christian’ - J.A.T Robinson, who truly supported Fletcher’s work and thought this theory would help to eliminate immorality. 

Many would say that the consequences of an act are the most important thing and have the biggest impact on a person’s life.

Weaknesses.

No clear cut rules, can be confusing to follow.

The law of love is still an absolutist law.

Depends on an individuals interpretation of what love is - but clearly love is hard to define and very subjective.

There is no saying that two people will reach an agreement on what the most loving thing to do it.

Also depends on the calculation of consequences which is very difficult to do accurately.

Many think that society works better when following concise, absolutist rules - easier to understand.

People can justify bad things in the name of love - i.e. adultery, murder of even genocide. (People aren’t always good).

Many acts are typically good or bad in themselves.

Glyn Symon in the ‘Honest to God’ debate said: “a false spirituality of this kind has always haunted the thinking of clever men”.

Vardy + Grosch in ‘The Puzzle of Ethics’ said that it ‘rests upon a fundamental value judgement (of Christian love) which cannot be rationally proven’.

Are some types of love better than others?

Does love justify the suffering of others?

Love is an abstract quality - how can we measure it?

Some people think moral standards have declined since people have rejected religious principles in favour of Situation Ethics.

In summary.

There are no absolute rules applicable in every situation.

The only rule is the rule of love.

The right thing to do is the most loving thing.

Love is intrinsically good.

Love and justice are the same.

Love is the right think for your neighbour.

Only the end justifies the means.

Decisions are made based on the situation in question. 

Compatible with religious beliefs?

Situation Ethics was based by Fletcher on the Bible and Christian Ethics.

Jesus emphasised the importance of loving your neighbour - it’s based on the pure motivation of Christian love.

Personalism compatible with Christianity - Jesus believed in putting people before the law.

Relativism - Buddhism and Christianity have relativistic aspects.

Jesus and St Paul taught that love was the highest principle above the law.

Situationism - reflects the Christian belief in free will/autonomy. 

It’s compatible with the altruistic nature of many world religions.

Some denominations like the Quakers and some within the Anglican and Methodist churches use it to make decisions on issues.

Very compatible with relativistic nature of Buddhism: would agree with pragmatism and also Buddhist ethics are wholly concerned with compassion, love and peace.

Incompatible with religious beliefs?

The Bible is arguably more absolute: 10 commandments and teachings of Jesus are thought of as absolutist ethical principles.

Rejects God as the ultimate sense of authority (i.e. goes against Christian/Catholic, Jewish and Islamic principles).

Doesn’t consider religious tradition or the teaching of church leaders, i.e. the Pope has said that abortion is always wrong.

Pope Benedict rejected the relativistic approach of Situation Ethics.

St. Paul said that love wasn’t the only desirable quality. 

Islam wayyyyyy more absolute.

Application to sex ethics.

Situation Ethics condemns sex that isn’t part of a loving relationship.

Sex before marriage: would ask if the motive is love or sexual desire. Is it a loving relationship or casual sex? Is anyone outside of the relationship being hurt by this?

Homosexuality: is the motive love or lost? Is there a commitment between the partners? Is anyone being hurt by it?

Adultery + divorce: motive? Is there a mutual commitment? Is divorce the most loving outcome?

But - as S.E is based on Christian principles it would probably regard much sexual activity outside or marriage as desire/lust rather than love and thus not the most loving thing to do.

[aethertempest]

My headmaster wasn’t sure if abortion in this case would be right, as the bible says ‘do not murder’, but sometimes you just have to push your principals aside and do the right thing.

If Joseph Fletcher was a comedian, probably

[rustbeltroadwarrior]

Socially Awkward - Volume 1

Socially Awkward – Volume 1

Socially Awkwardis a look back at some of last week’s hand picked favourites from various social media sites. Some of my picks include Jason Isbell’s invitation to audition for The Voice, the snowstorm in Buffalo, a beaten in door of a Travelodge Hotel room door in Kentucky, some new music from Leon Virgil Bowes, Olivia Jean live and some talk about the new Steve Earle & the Dukes album Terraform.

View On WordPress

[chrisphelps]

Joe Fletcher photographed by Chris Phelps on October 20, 2014 at the legendary Broken Spoke in Austin, TX. 

More @ chrisphelps.com

Twitter - twitter.com/chrisphelps_com

[chrisphelps]

Joe Fletcher photographed by Chris Phelps on October 20, 2014 at the legendary Broken Spoke in Austin, TX. 

More @ chrisphelps.com

Twitter - twitter.com/chrisphelps_com

[chrisphelps]

Joe Fletcher photographed by Chris Phelps on October 20, 2014 at the legendary Broken Spoke in Austin, TX. 

More @ chrisphelps.com

Twitter - twitter.com/chrisphelps_com