A Philosophical Appraisal of Joseph Fletcher’s New Morality
Chapter One
PREAMBLE OF THE STUDY
Situation ethics, otherwise known as the new morality, states that in every situation each individual is responsible for reviewing the rules, norms and guidelines for action, then implementation or setting aside those rules so that love is best served. This theory exerted its greatest influence in Europe and North America in the twentieth century, although such influence waned by 1980. According to Joseph Fletcher, “It is an old posture with a new and contemporary look”.
Fletcher is a major proponent of situation ethics. In his book entitled: Situation Ethics (the new morality), he presented to us an individual freedom and individual responsibility within an ethic of love. He attempts to free man from legalism by providing a system of decision-making, which presupposes individual responsibility and states that everyman must decide for himself what is right. He tells us that moral decisions often fall into three categories: legalism, antinormianism and situationism. These categories will be elaborated upon in chapter one of this work.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Throughout the ages, the issue of morality has received different attention from various philosophers. The Sophists, through their cultural relativism approached the issue of morality by assigning coherent set of meanings to ethical and moral concepts and principles, and explaining how to live well in a city –state. From the cultural relativism of the sophist, it could be implied that the Sophists are in support of situation ethics. Thus, MacIntyre writes: “The whole moral vocabulary is defined by the sophists in terms of the prevailing usage in different states”.10
Socrates on his own part appears different from different points of views in terms of morality. Socrates found himself confronted both by moral conservatives using an incoherent moral vocabulary as if they where sure of its meaning, and by the sophists whose innovations he found equally suspect. Socrates’ position about making moral decisions could be seen from his exhortation to all, to seek knowledge. He believed that all moral virtues were forms of knowledge, in such a way that when we know what is good, it follows that we would necessarily do it.
Plato did not write any book devoted exclusively to morality, but most of his works contains moral issues. It could be said that the moral issues treated by Plato in some of his major works like the Republic, was as a result of the nature of the Athenian politics. He could not understand how the Athenian politicians could kill a man like Socrates, such a good moralist and philosopher. Plato, like Socrates believed that ignorance is the cause of immorality. Thus, he says, “A man who does evil does not really know what he is doing for no man does evil willingly.”11 He maintains that ignorance is the cause of wrongdoing.
Aristotle has two major works on ethics: the Nichomacian ethics and Magna Moralia. He said that all of man’s activities on earth are directed towards the attainment of certain ends. Every human action according to Aristotle is a means to an end, which is seen as a good. There is however, an end, which is sought for its own sake, and all other ends are sought because they lead to this ultimate end, which does not itself lead to any other end. This end, according to Aristotle is happiness. All men seek happiness, but there is only one way to attain it and that is through morality. The aim of morality and the standard of morality is happiness. If you want to be happy, you must live a moral life. Those actions that lead to happiness are good actions and those actions that lead to unhappiness are bad actions. This view, which makes happiness the standard of morality, is called “eudemonism.”
Morality is a vast topic in philosophy. Almost every philosopher has something to say about morality. We have already seen above an aspect of the morality or ethics of the Sophists, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. There are still, those of others which include: the Stoic ethics, the Epicurean ethics, the ethics of St. Augustine, the ethics of the Medieval philosophers (St. Thomas Aquinas, Don Scotus, William of Ockham, Niccolo Machiavelli), The ethics of Modern philosophers (Thomas Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Hegel etc) and the Contemporary ethics. Due to the vast nature of morality and the various opinions of many philosophers, we shall now limit ourselves to these philosophers: Immanuel Kant, August Comte and Soren Kierkegaard, and their views as regards to moral decisions.
CHAPTER THREE
SITUATION ETHICS
Situation ethics springs forth from the clarion call for a review and reformation of the traditional ethics and the Christian ethics. This call is rather an expression of dissatisfaction from some quarters with the traditional ethics and Christian ethics. Due to the nature of its origination, there have been conflicting opinions as to whether it is a rejection of Christian ethics and traditional ethics, or their fulfilment in contemporary terms. Situation ethics can as well be described as contextual ethics or circumstantial ethics. According to G. Woods, “the various descriptions emphasize that it is an ethic of moral situation, in which the individual accepts the responsibility of making free moral decisions.”19 Situation ethics is not Christian oriented only. It appeals to both Christians and non-Christians. It is congenial to the atheistic existentialist. The situationist studies the human situation and concludes that man is not bound by an essential nature, which he cannot discard or to which he ought to conform. Man is free to make moral decisions and it is in the making of his moral decisions that he creates his moral standards. Man is not tied to the past and he is open to the future. He loses his life in making inauthentic decisions and he finds his life in making decisions which are genuinely his own. For the situationist, man achieves his existence in making existential decisions in the situations in which he finds himself. His ethics are in a sense situational. Situation ethics gives primacy to human personal values. It states that the responsibility of the moral agent is to study the facts of the situation and to select what are known from experience to be the most appropriate means of promoting mature personal life.
CHAPTER FOUR
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Fletcher’s work consists of case histories, vividly and dramatically told portraying crucial moral situations. However, in most of the cases presented by Fletcher, even hardbound legalist could solve them even as sympathetically as Fletcher. One of such cases presented by Fletcher is that of a family which was scattered during the Second World War. The man was captured and taken to a prison camp in Wales. The wife too was captured and taken to the prison camp in Ukraine and the children were all scattered. The man, however, was soon released and he came back home to Germany and after weeks of searching found his children. But neither he nor the children had any idea where his wife was and they were desperately looking for her. News gets to his wife in the prison camp in Ukraine that her family was together again and was desperately looking for her. But she could not be released because release was granted only on either of the two conditions namely: serious illness with which the camp could not cope or pregnancy in the case of a woman.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
The controversy about the way, which Christians ought to accept or reject the situation ethics, has disclosed sharply opposed views. However, I will like to point out that Fletcher’s new morality or the situation ethics, is incompatible with Christian faith and practice. The fundamental obligations of the moral law were based upon the nature of man as such, and those of the Christian moral law were based upon the being and acts of God. I do not intend to condemn the exercise of a proper prudence and the role and treatment of love in Fletcher’s new morality. But, what I am against is the tendency to subordinate the objective moral law to some kind of subjective judgment, which Fletcher claims to be an immediate decision taken in love, in the situation. According to Fagothey, “the proponents of situationism, because of their exaggerations, must bear the blame for its ambivalent image”.52 Fletcher went to the extreme in his treatment of the new morality. He should not have made a total rejection of all moral laws. Moral laws have been acknowledged to be of great value in many ways. If there is the need for the rejection of any moral law at all, what ought to be rejected is the conception of the universal moral law to which there are no exceptions. However, the number of such exceptions should be very small indeed. The exceptions should be indeed exceptional. The matter for discussion, therefore, should be the moral justification of rare exceptions. This is to be made not through moral irresponsibility but in obedience to what is believed to be the Christian obligation of love towards God and neighbour. The whole operation of making exceptions should be very critical. There are, however, universal moral laws of action, which require no exceptions. A look at some hard cases might disclose the various ways in which the application of some universal moral laws can be unsatisfying. Despite these possible defects of some laws, one should at least, welcome their assistance as embodying many lessons drawn from centuries of practical experience.
In an age when the study of Christian ethics is somewhat retarded, and when a great deal of ethical discussion is not constructive, careful attention should be given to any movement of ethical thought which appeals to a large number of serious minded people. Situation ethics certainly deserves sympathetic investigation. It rightly emphasizes the necessity of a proper study of the facts of each moral situation. Also, it rightly indicates some of the defects and dangers of legalism in the expression and application of the moral standards. These two points are in fact, a recovery of emphases, which have been a characteristic of a sound Christian moral tradition. The error in some situational ethics has been an inadequate analysis of the manifold forms of the moral standard, and of the fundamental structure of the human situation to which the standard applies. If there is to be Christian situation ethics, it must be worked out in the human situation as understood in the traditional Christian understanding of the world, the soul and God. However, it still requires reformation. Although situation ethics and its influences are no longer strong in the modern society, the issues that it sought to address are still relevant today. As such, I will advocate that we should not throw away situation ethics over-board entirely. It has lessons to teach us. It is a part of human history.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- COMPOSTA, D., Moral Philosophy and Social Ethics, India: Theological publications, 1988.
- CRAIG, E., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol.8, Padstow: T. J. International Ltd., 1998.
- EBOH B, O., Living Issues in Ethics, Nsukka: Afro-Orbis Pub. Company, 2005.
- FAGOTHEY, A., Right and Reason 6th edition, U.S.A: The C. V. Morby Company, 1976.
- FLETCHER, J., Situation Ethics, London: The Westminster press, 1966.
- HIGGINS, T., Man as man (ethics), U.S.A: The Bruce publishing company, 1958.
- JAMES, W., Pragmatism, U.S.A: Longmans and Green Company, 1907.
- KIERKEGAARD, S., Fear and Trembling, Princeton: Princeton University press, 1983.
- KIERKEGAARD, S., The Journal, U.S.A: Oxford University Press
- LENZER, G., Positivism, U.S.A: Grolier Incorporated, 2001.
- MACINTYRE, A., A Short History of Ethics, Padstow: The Macmillan Company, 1966.
- MARITAIN, J., Moral Philosophy, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970.
- OMOREGBE, J., Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Approach, Lagos: Joja Press, 1993.
- QUICK., C., The Doctrine of the Creed, London: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1938.
