William Barclay’s Criticism of Situation Ethics
William Barclay a Scottish theologian, outlined a carefully considered critique of Situation Ethics in Ethics in a Permissive Society (1971). Barclay observed that the cases Fletcher used to illustrate the need for solving moral dilemmas situationally were extreme ones: a woman in a prisoner of war camp; the decision whether to bomb Hiroshima. Barclay asked how often we are likely to make the kind of life-and-death choices on which Fletcher based Situation Ethics. He suggested that ‘It is much easier to agree that extraordinary situations need extraordinary measures than to think that there are no laws for ordinary everyday life.’
Barclay also suggested that Fletcher overestimated the value of being free from rules and the constant decision-making processes that this forces humans into. If it were the case that agape could always be fairly and accurately dealt out, laws would be unnecessary. As it is, there are no such guarantees, so a degree of law is necessary for human survival. Barclay suggested that the law serves vital functions in making sense of our experience and enabling society to determine what a reasonable life is by defining crime, acting as a deterrent value and protecting society. Furthermore, Barclay argued that Fletcher was unrealistic in terms of how free humans really are, even if there was no law to guide them. Environment, upbringing and education all have an impact on the choices we make, so it is unreasonable to think that humans could make moral choices without taking anything into account except love. Above all, Barclay suggested, law ensures that humans do not make an artificial distinction between public and private morality: ‘A man can live his own life, but when he begins deliberately to alter the lives of others, then a real problem arises.’ By this Barclay means that moral decisions affect not only those who make them but also others and the law takes this into account.
Barclay’s criticisms suggest that Fletcher was overly optimistic about the capacity of human beings to make morally correct choices, and not to be influenced by personal preferences. Furthermore, how can we arbitrate a case in which two people reach different conclusions about an action, yet both claim to be acting in the interests of love? Is it valuable, as Fletcher suggests to act independently and flexibly?
The main challenges identified by Barclay.
• Barclay’s criticisms suggest that Fletcher was overly optimistic about the capacity of human beings to make morally correct choices and not to be influenced by personal preferences.
• Human beings need the guidelines offered by rules to avoid moral chaos.
• Furthermore, how can we arbitrate a case in which two people reach different conclusions about an action, yet both claim to be acting in the interests of love? Are our actions as independent and flexible as Fletcher assumes?
Absence of Objective Standards: Barclay argued that Situation Ethics lacked objective moral standards. He believed that relying solely on situational context and love as the guiding principle could lead to moral relativism, where any action could be justified based on the circumstances.
Potential for Subjectivism: He expressed concerns that Situation Ethics might devolve into subjective decision-making, where individuals prioritize their own desires or preferences over ethical principles. Without a clear moral framework beyond love, Barclay worried that people might justify selfish or harmful actions.
Difficulty in Application: According to Barclay, Situation Ethics posed challenges in its practical application. Determining the most loving action in every situation could be complex and subjective, leading to uncertainty and inconsistency in moral decision-making.
Neglect of Virtue Ethics: Barclay criticized Situation Ethics for neglecting the importance of virtues and character development in moral reasoning. He believed that a comprehensive ethical system should not only focus on actions but also on cultivating virtuous character traits.
Inadequate Foundation: Barclay questioned the theological foundation of Situation Ethics, particularly its interpretation of Christian love. He argued that Situation Ethics' understanding of love as the sole moral criterion might oversimplify the rich theological tradition and teachings found in Christianity.