Some may say that the strengths outweighs the weakeness because the theory is simple and easy to understand therefore more people will be in favour of the theory because it seems accessible at the first sight. It's also common sense so more people will be in favour. However, some may say that situation ethics requires us to asses each situation individually and takes up to much time which is linking to Benthams Util difficulties. It is hard to isolate situation and also predicts the consequence.
Furthermore, another strength of SE is that it is based on the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul which is the commandment to love and as Fletcher is a Christian as is JAT Robinson it shows that doing the most loving thing won't cause any harm as love is harmless and looks for the best interests in every human.
In the other hand, a weakness of SE is that love and justice are not the same as love searches for not what people deserve put more on what people need and justice is what people deserve and therefore it makes it difficult to calculate how to serve love justly.
In conclusion, ultimately the weaknesses outweigh the strengths because situation ethics' biggest challenge is that important rules and laws that have been applied in order to make society safe can be broken e.g. The state of each country has set up certain rules in order to have justice served, in the UK if you murder someone you face the charges that the law has given and if important rules like do not murder are broken this results in a unjust society and extremely dangerous society. If love is the only rule then there is a huge loss in protection.
Situation Ethics is a teleological ethical theory, where only the consequences of an action matter. This is a strength because humans are forward looking - we tend to think ‘what if …’ in moral situations. Moreover moral choices influenced only by rules may not produce a loving outcome if there is no consideration of consequences. However, it is impossible to predict consequences accurately, and Fletcher did not specify if we only need to consider immediate or long term consequences. Nevertheless, motives may be good or bad, but only consequences have a real effect upon our lives
Write 2-3 further paragraphs here for a 12 mark question. Try to include the scholars (Barclay etc.)
Paragraph structure:
AO1: Feature of the argument (key concept)
AO2: Weakness/criticism of the feature
AO2: Counter argument, i.e. strength of the feature
AO2: Add another weakness of the feature
REMEMBER: For a 20 mark question you need to add two more strings of logical reasoning & a conclusion
Situation Ethics does encourage unethical behaviour as it is only really relevant to Christians rather than non-religious believers. Peter Vardy's views regarding Christianity and situation ethics can be used to support this Peter Vardy introduced the idea that Situation Ethics will be of more value and use for individuals especially Christians as he said that if you're a Christian who has already experienced/lived a life in relationship with Jesus then this will allow you to resist temptation to be selfish and love in a more agapeistic way. This demonstrates how Situation Ethics can easily encourage nonbelievers to carry out immoral and unethical behaviour due to the fact they don't fully understand the foundation of the theory.
Despite this, it can be argued that Situation Ethics rather discourages unethical behaviour as it is a relativist, flexible theory that allows you to respond to a specific situation. People who agree with this statement would put this point forward to support their opinion as situation ethics also has a personal approach. Euthanasia is a good example here depending on the circumstances of the particular situation, Situation Ethics may allow euthanasia , if the outcome was a loving one. This is a strong point as it demonstrates Situation Ethics relevance to the 21st century as it is suitable and applicable to an array of situations regardless of the gender/age of the person. Situation Ethics therefore focuses on agape, love making it less likely to encourage unethical behaviour.
On the other hand, many would say it does encourage unethical behaviour as it has previously been condemned by various Popes, as a selfish and individualistic way of making moral decisions. Pope Benedict said in April 2005, “We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires". For example, the only person to make a decision on what the loving thing to do is, is you/the person in the unique situation. This would allow for selfish thoughts and decisions to be made out of choice despite anyone else's thoughts.
Your decision could easily be clouded by your emotions. This is quite a compelling thought as if the individual doesn't consider anyone else's point of view it could ultimately not cause the most loving action and result in a negative way towards others. Also, the six fundamental principles, and the four working principles only offer hints about how to apply Situation Ethics– achieve the most agapeistic outcome, they do not provide a cleardecision.
However, Situation Ethics doesn't encourage unethical behaviour as it is a useful way to make decisions due to the fact it offers a person moral autonomy, by giving a method to choose between two good or bad courses of action. An example of where this can be demonstrated is the clash between Natural Law's primary precepts of living in an ordered society and reproducing. Both of these precepts don't always agree – too many children would go against living in an ordered society therefore Situation Ethics might allow the use contraception. This is a really powerful point because Situation Ethics clearly concentrates on the most loving action for the people involved– in this case reducing the population.
In conclusion, I believe that Situation Ethics does encourage unethical behaviour as it is a theory based on an ambiguous concept and people may find it difficult to interpret. Situation Ethics is vague and because it has no fixed guidelines, it can often confuse people as to what is meant by "the most loving thing to do" is. Therefore some people may not fully understand the theory and so it may steer them towards an unethical decision.