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 clear decision.
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 childrenwould 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.
Situation Ethics is a teleological Christian ethical theory that was developed by Joseph Fletcher and most fully set out in his book Situation Ethics: the New Morality in 1966. Barclay was a famous critic of SE and in this brief extract is drawing attention to a standard criticism of it, namely, that as a system it is too elastic, meaning that an appeal to agape or selfless concern for others (as taught by Jesus in the form of love of neighbour and enemy) can be used to justify anything. For example, at one point in his book, Fletcher strongly implies that the atomic bombing of Japan was justifiable according to what he refers to as an ‘agapeic calculus’.
The ‘principles’ that Barclay refers to are the Six Fundamental Principles that guide moral decision-making in SE: love only is always good, love is the only norm, love and justice are the same, love is not liking, love is the only means, and love decides there and then. These principles, along with the Four Presumptions of Pragmatism, Personalism, Positivism and Relativism are designed to equip a follower of SE with the tools to make a sound moral decision. However, they are not prescriptive and do not provide a ready-made answer to a moral dilemma. They are merely intended to steer the Situationist in the right direction. For example, the principle ‘love is not liking’ reminds them that agape should be exhibited to all, regardless of our personal feelings about a person or group. Meanwhile, the presumption of Personalism highlights the fact that for Fletcher, people not objects matter. For example, if one had to make a choice between saving a known terrorist or the Mona Lisa from a fire in the Louvre Art Gallery, this presumption suggests that we should save the terrorist.
Although Barclay claims that ‘there is no absolute right and wrong’ in SE, he goes on to mention ‘the command to love your neighbour’. There seems to be a contradiction here, as Fletcher insists in his book that love is ‘objectively valid’, so contra Barclay, agape is a moral absolute for Fletcher. Barclay is probably concerned that SE runs the risk of sliding into antinomianism, as the fact that agape trumps all other moral considerations worries more traditionally inclined Christians like him, who might wish to adhere to other rules that promote the sanctity of life, such as the sixth of the Ten Commandments.