Abstract

In a bid to address the pit falls of earlier ethical traditions and to their extremes of absolutism and legalism, Joseph Fletcher advances what he claims to be a balanced position known as situation ethics. Fletcher's situation ethics is claims to be a unique type of ethical tradition known as situationism, based on love. According to Fletcher, every moral circumstance is peculiar and requires flexibility of moral judgement according to the ultimate principle of love. To clarify his position, he presents the example of one Mrs. Bergmeier, who out of love and a desire to be reunited with her family, convinced a prison guard to commit sexual immorality with her which resulted in pregnancy, since being pregnant was the considerable option for leaving prison. The moral, issue is whether Mrs. Bergmeier is guilty of immoral act. Fletcher holds the position that since the act was out love, she should not be adjudged immoral. Fletcher's theory has been criticized over time. Firstly, critics often point out apparent contradictions between Fletcher's situation ethics and Christian morality which Fletcher claims to profess and practice. Secondly, Fletcher fails to fulfill his primary goal of justifying situation ethics as the balance between legalism and antinomianism. By making love the ultimate principle and being unable to properly define what love is, his ethics tends to be more legalistic and antinomian than situational. Thirdly, following the principle of love in all moral contexts as proposed by Fletcher could lead to certain complications and absurdities. Despite these seemingly valid criticisms, this research aims to reveal how Fletcher's situation ethics, hinged on a sacrificial understanding of love, can be applied in a world that is fast becoming oppressive. Situationism can be likened to healing balm for a world characterized by poverty, oppression, domination, and disregard for the rights of man.