Situation Ethics

Introduction

This paper is an attempt made to define situation ethics andbring out the main ideas behind Joseph Fletcher’s idea onsituation ethics, his four presuppositions and sixfundamentals are dealt with, after which a reflection on thebiblical support to situation ethics is given. The paper alsodeals with two cases in Indian context to support situationethics, and deals with the demerit and merit of situationethics. An evaluation and conclusion is given in the end.

1. Definition

Situation Ethics is based on one principle i.e., Ethics is amatter of always acting in agape (love).1 Thus the principle onwhich Situation Ethics decide right and wrong is only throughlove.

We can see a clearer definition of situation ethics where itis defined that, the deontologists of the Kantian, divinecommand, and secular positivism positions hold that specificacts are moral or immoral. The attention is given to anaction; one that you are morally required to do or to refrainfrom doing. Situation ethics is a rule deontology; instead ofbeing morally required to do an action, you are morallyrequired to follow a rule. The rule of situation ethics isthat you must unconditionally love your neighbor.2 Thus takingnote of this two definition we can say that Situation Ethicsis defined as a method of deciding right and wrong purely outof love for neighbor without having any kinds of conditions orterms in doing so.

2. Evolution of Situation Ethics1 "Situation ethics", The American Heritage Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, Fourth Edition (2000)2 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics: The new morality (Philadelphia: WestminsterPress, 1997), 46-49

Deontological Ethicists would assert that the sense of ‘duty’decides right and wrong,3 which the teleological ethicistswould disagree and assert that it is the ‘end goal’ whichdecides right and wrong,4 Contextual ethicists would disagreeto both and say that the context which is the socio-political,philosophical, economical, psychological, biblio-theologicalperspective of a given context needs to be considered beforedeciding right and wrong.5 All this approaches seems toemphasize on their own way of doing ethics, but they all havea commonality where they all seems to propagate a set of rulesfor deciding right and wrong, and thus situation ethics comesinto this juncture and proposes for a new approach to ethics.

Situation Ethics can be traced back even to Augustinianwritings, where Augustine asserts that one must act accordingto how God would act when faced with a situation and heparticularly talks of acting in God’s love.6 Some of the

3 “Deontology”, John Macquarrie, A Dictionary of Christian Ethics (London:SCM Press Ltd., 1967)4 Michael Slote, “Teleological Ethics”, eds. Lawrence Becker, CharlotteBecker, Encyclopedia of Ethics (New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1992)5 “Contextual Theology”, Douglas J Miller, ed. Carl F.H. Henry, WycliffeDictionary of Christian Ethics(Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc.2003)6 Allan D Fitzgerald, “Ethics: Scriptural Foundations”, Augustine throughthe Ages ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald(Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1999) 324-325

Situation Ethicists are: In Europe, Brunner7, Barth8,Bohoeffer9, Bultmann10, and in America are Niebuhr11 andTillich,12 who is also considered as a situation ethicist. 13

Joseph Fletcher stands out among this group as a situationethicists and many would agree to it.14

Different Christian writers have been able to find biblicalsupport for their ideas concerning ethical thinking for

7 Emil Brunner, in full Heinrich Emil Brunner    (born December 23,1889, Winterthur, Switzerland—died April 6, 1966, Zürich), Swiss theologianin the Reformed tradition who helped direct the course of modern Protestanttheology. Ordained in the Swiss Reformed Church, Brunner served as a pastorat Obstalden, Switzerland, from 1916 to 1924. In 1924 he became professorof systematic and practical theology at the University of Zürich, where hetaught continuously, except for extensive lecture tours in the UnitedStates and in Asia. He was concerned with ecumenism from the 1930s and wasa delegate to the first assembly of the World Council of Churches(Amsterdam, 1948). In retirement he was professor of Christian philosophyat the International Christian University of Tokyo (1953–55).8 Karl Barth,  (born May 10, 1886, Basel, Switzerland—died December 9/10,1968, Basel), Swiss Protestant theologian, probably the most influential ofthe 20th century. Closely supported by his lifelong friend and colleague,the theologian Eduard Thurneysen, he initiated a radical change inProtestant thought, stressing the “wholly otherness of God” over theanthropocentrism of 19th-century liberal theology. Barth recovered thecentrality of the doctrine of the Trinity within the dynamic and rationalstructure of Christian dogmatics; of particular importance was hisreappropriation of the Christology of the ancient church. His vigorousopposition to German National Socialism led to his suspension as professorof theology at the University of Bonn. Subsequently, at Basel, he continuedwork on his monumental Church Dogmatics (completing four volumes) anddelivered more than 500 sermons.9 Dietrich Bonhoeffer,  (born February 4, 1906, Breslau, Germany [nowWrocław, Poland]—died April 9, 1945, Flossenbürg, Germany), GermanProtestant theologian important for his support of ecumenism and his viewof Christianity’s role in a secular world. His involvement in a plot tooverthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. His Letters andPapers from Prison, published posthumously in 1951, is perhaps the mostprofound document of his convictions.10 Rudolf Bultmann, in full Rudolf Karl Bultmann   (born August 20,1884, Wiefelstede, Germany—died July 30, 1976, Marburg, WestGermany), leading 20th-century New Testament scholar known for his programto “demythologize” the New Testament—i.e., to interpret, according to theconcepts of existentialist philosophy, the essential message of the NewTestament that was expressed in mythical terms.11 Reinhold Niebuhr,  (born June 21, 1892, Wright City, Mo., U.S.—died June1, 1971, Stockbridge, Mass.), American Protestant theologian who had

Christians. Tillich, for example, declared that "Love is theultimate law."15 Barth found great support for an ethic ofdivine command.16 Hauerwas17 found biblical confirmation of anethics of the virtuous character.18 Burtness19 found examples ofconsequential ethics in the writings of Paul and the sayingsof Jesus.20 All these approaches to doing ethics paved way forJoseph Fletcher to develop situation ethics and he quote fromthem to support his views.

extensive influence on political thought and whose criticism of theprevailing theological liberalism of the 1920s significantly affected theintellectual climate within American Protestantism. His exposure, as apastor in Detroit, to the problems of American industrialism led him tojoin the Socialist Party for a time. A former pacifist, he activelypersuaded Christians to support the war against Hitler and after World WarII had considerable influence in the U.S. State Department. His mostprominent theological work was The Nature and Destiny of Man, which was plannedas a synthesis of the theology of the Reformation with the insights of theRenaissance.12 Paul Tillich,  (born Aug. 20, 1886, Starzeddel, Brandenburg, Ger.—diedOct. 22, 1965, Chicago), German-born U.S. theologian and philosopher whosediscussions of God and faith illuminated and bound together the realms oftraditional Christianity and modern culture. Some of his books, notably TheCourage to Be (1952) and Dynamics of Faith (1957), reached a large publicaudience not usually concerned with religious matters. The three-volumeSystematic Theology (1951–63) was the culmination of his rigorous examinationof faith.13 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 61-6214 Stanley Hauerwas, “Love’s Not All You Need,” Cross Current-22 (1972),227-22815 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1951), 15216 Karl Barth, Ethics (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1981)17 Stanley Hauerwas (born July 24, 1940) is an American theologian,ethicist, and public intellectual. Hauerwas currently teaches at DukeUniversity, serving as the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethicsat Duke Divinity School with a joint appointment at the Duke UniversitySchool of Law. Before coming to Duke, Hauerwas was a longtime professor atthe University of Notre Dame. He is considered by many to be one of theworld's most influential living theologians and was named "America's BestTheologian".18 Stanley Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life, (Notre Dame: University ofNotre Dame Press,1994)19 James H. Burtness is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. His published work includes Shaping the Future: The Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer(1985).

3. Joseph Fletcher

Joseph Fletcher is identified as the "Father of SituationEthics" as well as the pioneer of "Biomedical Ethics." Hisbook Situation Ethics is used as a model for the SituationEthics platform and nearly all later studies and researchrefer to Fletcher's model. He died in 1991, at the age of 86.He was born a protestant and became a priest in the EpiscopalSeminary in the 1960's. He was an advocate of PlannedParenthood and member of the Euthanasia Educational Council.21

His approach to situation ethics is based on fourpresuppositions and six fundamentals they are:

3.1. Four Presuppositions

Fletcher's situationism is based on four main presuppositions.

3.1.1. Pragmatism: This simply means that whether we likeit or not, what is good must be judged on the basis ofwhat works.22

3.1.2. Relativism: Situation ethics is also based on theprinciple of relativism. This does not mean thateverything is relative. It still claims the principleof love. However, the way in which love is carried outmay be different from one situation to another.23

3.1.3. Positivism: Faith claims cannot be proven to be truerationalistically. They can only be "posited" andaffirmed by the person who chooses to believe theiraccuracy. Thus, situationism does not seek to provethat an ethical conclusion is true. It only seeks to

20 James H. Burtness, Consequences: Morality, Ethics and the Future (Minneapolis:Fortress Press,1999) particularly Chapter 19.21 ‘Joseph Fletcher’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fletcher, accessedon 27/07/14, 9:50 am22 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 40-4323 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 43-46

provide justification (support) for the ethicaldecision.24

3.1.4. Personalism: Here personalism means ethics cannot beseparated from people. To have an ethical system thatis based upon a code or rule without regard for thepeople is pointless. Situationism, with love as itsprimary standard, focuses on love as it relates topeople.25

Based on this four presuppositions Fletcher works out sixfundamentals which played the central role in developing hismethod of doing ethics.

3.2. Six fundamentals

The six fundamentals which Fletcher heavily depended upon indoing Christian ethics are

3.2.1. Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love:nothing else.

Under this, Fletcher argues that love is the only good. Heargues that love is a predicate, Christians are called to dogood and to do good means ‘one is to love’.26 He quotes Niebuhr“God nowhere commands love for its own sake”, 27 and statesthat “it (love) is for the sake of the people and it is not agood-in-itself.”28 Thus, love here means to love for the sakeof our neighbours (People).

Fletcher compares Barth and Luther to prove his point. Barthwrote, “Let us be quite Frank and say that there aresituations in which killing of germinating life does notconstitute murder but is in fact commanded”.29 Noting the italicized

24 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 46-4925 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 50-5226 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 6027 Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (Harper and Brothers, 1951), 1528 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 6129 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. III, Bk.4, 416-421

statement Fletcher criticizes Barth saying that when Barthdealt with abortion, he was saying that God’s command is to dosomething absolutely wrong.30 Fletcher pointed out that Barthshould have trusted Luther more when Luther said, “Therefore,when the law impels one against love it ceases and should nolonger be a law”,31 Fletcher here, argues that the law whichdecides what is right and wrong should no longer be a law ifit is against the principle of Love.

3.2.2. The ultimate norm of Christian decisions is love:nothing else.

Under this Fletchers goes on to draw out his point from theBible, he argues that Jesus and Paul replaced the precepts ofTorah with the living principle of agape.32 Fletcher assertsthat Christian love is not desire but rather agape love is agiving love which have no reciprocal and given to all(neighbour).33 He further goes on to claim that Jesus Christ ofthe Christians Ethics leaves no doubt that the ruling norm ofChristian decision is love by quoting Matthew 12:1-8, whereJesus while being questioned by the Pharisees about pluckinggrains on the day of Sabbath took the example of David eatingthe bread of presence when he was hungry.34

Thus for Fletcher Jesus endorsed situation ethics and that indoing situation ethics the only norm for deciding right andwrong is through love (agape).

3.2.3. Love and justice are the same, for justice is lovedistributed.

Under this fundamental, Fletcher goes on to first attack thewrongful separation of love and justice, he argues by sayingthat, “To say that love is between individuals and justice30 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 6231 Martin Luther, Sermon; Eighteenth Sunday after Trinity, “The ChurchPostil Vol. V,” Ed. J.N.Linker (Germany: Luther House, 1905) , 17532 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 6933 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 7934 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 85-86

between groups, and that a union cannot love a corporation ora city cannot love the nation, is to sentimentalize love anddehumanize justice”,35 here we see that Fletcher is arguingthat love and justice cannot be separated as to do so it is adehumanizing process and that it cannot be love nor justice.

After drawing out the idea that separation of love and justiceis wrong, Fletcher further deal with this by proposing a unionbetween love and justice in a comparative method. He draws outa comparison between love-justice relationships with faith-work relationships. He writes,

“Some theologies treat faith-work as faith versusworks, some as faith or works, some as faith and works.Christian situation ethics says faith is works, i.e.,simply put, that faith works. In the same way varioussystems of justice: love versus justice (Opposites),36

love or justice (alternatives), 37 love and justice(Complements).38 We (situation ethicists) say, however,very positively, that love is Justice or that justiceloves. They are one and same. To be loving is to bejust, to be just is to be loving.39

Therefore we can conclude by this comparison of Fletcher thatfor the situation ethicists love and justice are not separateentity but for them they are one as to love means one is beingjust and to be just means one is being loving.

3.2.4. Love wills the neighbour’s good whether we like himor not.

Under this fundamental Fletcher discusses who our neighbour isand what is this thing call ‘love’. The question of, who is35 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 9036 Anders Nygren’s Agape and Eros, tr. Philip S. Watson ( Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1953)37 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol.II (New York: CharlesScribner’s Sons, 1941), 24538 William Temple, Christianity and Social Order (London: SCM Press Ltd.,1950), 7539 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 92-93

our neighbour?, is answered by Fletcher quoting Matthew 5:43-48, where he identifies the neighbour as anybody includingones own enemy.40 In regard to love, Fletcher identifyChristian love as agapeic and not erotic or philic.41 Hefurther explains that it is right to love ones’ self if it isfor the sake of God and ones’ neighbour.42 To Fletcher love isnot a question of liking or not liking a person, it is not alove business of playing favourites.43 Therefore to Fletcherlove is universalistic and self-emptying (kenotic) in nature,love extends to anybody and does anything for the sake ofothers.

3.2.5. Only the end justifies the means: nothing else.

In regard to this fundamental Fletcher brings out fourquestions which he considers necessary for doing ethics,first, what is wanted? Which is about the end, what result isaimed? Second, By what means? This is about the possible wayto reach to that end which is aimed. Third, What is the driveor ‘wanting’ dynamic behind the act? This is about themotivation which is driving the person to reach the end or theresult aimed. Fourth, What are the foreseeable consequences?This is about what are the possible results which might takeplace when the end or which is aimed is acquired.44

Looking at this four questions we can see that Fletcher isattempting to look into the end product of what is attemptedand thus justifies the means to get to that end product iffound to be good or right. Thus for Fletcher, only the endjustifies the means.

3.2.6. Decisions ought to be made situationally, notprescriptively.

40 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 10741 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 10342 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 11443 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 11944 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 127-128

Under this fundamental Fletcher stretches on love deciding ortaking decision out of love there and then. Fletcher assertsthat the situationist cuts themselves loose from the dead handof unyielding law, which gives false promises of relief fromanguish of decision, the situationist can only determine thatas a person of goodwill he/she will live as a free person.Fletcher further asserts that a situationist lives his/hermoral life more like an adventure and ceases to pretend to bea blueprint.45

Here we can understand that Fletcher is talking of situationswhere one have to go beyond ones’ understanding of ethics as ablueprint laid down by the social norms and act on love. Asituation when one have to break all odds laid down before usto do good, i.e., to act out of love for ones’ neighbour andGod.

4. Bible and Situation Ethics (A reflection)

The Bible seems to justify the stand situationist holds and inorder to prove that we shall look into some of the biblicalportions which talks or acts according to the situation. But,with limited time and space, we cannot deal with all theissues of Bible and situation Ethics. Therefore, under thissection we shall deal with three major issues killing,stealing, and lying.

4.1. Killing

Ex 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

This is not an absolute; there are exceptions depending on thesituation. Here are 3 examples of many. Note the killingpromoted in these verses, often it is of women, infants, aswell as men:

1Sa 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] whichAmalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way,

45 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 135

when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that theyhave, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infantand suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Deuteronomy 2:32-35

32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, tofight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smotehim, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterlydestroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, ofevery city, we left none to remain: 35 Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, and thespoil of the cities which we took.

Joshua 10:40

40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of thesouth, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all theirkings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all thatbreathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

Ec 3:1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to everypurpose under the heaven: Ec 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to breakdown, and a time to build up;

4.2. Stealing

Ex 20:15 Thou shalt not steal.

This is also not an absolute; there are exceptions dependingon the situation. Note the actions of taking spoils.

Judges 14:19

And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down toAshkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil,

and gave change of garments unto them which expounded theriddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to hisfather's house.

Jos 8:1, 2

And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thoudismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, goup to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, andhis people, and his city, and his land:

And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst untoJericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattlethereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee anambush for the city behind it.

4.3. Lying

Ex 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thyneighbour.

This is also not an absolute; there are exceptions dependingon the situation.

1Ki 22:22

And the LORD said unto him, Where with? And he said, I will goforth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all hisprophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevailalso: go forth, and do so.

1Ki 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in themouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evilconcerning thee.

2Ch 18:21

And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouthof all his prophets. And [the LORD] said, Thou shalt entice[him], and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do [even] so.

2Ch 18:22

Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in themouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evilagainst thee.

1Sa 16:2

And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear [it], he will killme. And the LORD said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I amcome to sacrifice to the LORD.

Taking note of the examples in the Bible we can see that Godallowed human to act according to the situation. God would bea person without integrity if the absolutism claim ofuniversal absolute rules is applied on God taking note of theCommandments of God given to the Israelites and compare itwith the later commands to smith/destroy, take spoils, and tolie. In each of the verses we see that the situation demandedsuch actions. For example, in order to make sure thatreligious syncretism does not take place and that the trueworship of Yahweh is not defiled, it was necessary to kill allthe Canaanites before settling in Canaan. Further if we take adeeper look, the survival of Canaanites can pose as a threatas just as the Egyptian began to fear the Hebrews as they weregrowing in number, even the Israelites might also face athreat from the Canaanites if they were spared. This twopossibilities justifies God’s command as it was intended tosafeguard Israel’s existence in the presence of the Lord.

5. Fletcher’s examples of situation ethics

In his book ‘Situation ethics’ Fletcher deals with four caseswhere situation ethics can be applied, we shall deal with oneof the which is titles, ‘Sacrificial Adultery’.

As the Russian armies drove westward to meet the Americans andBritish at the Elbe, a soviet patrol picked up a Mrs.Bergmeier foraging food for her three children. Unable even toget word to the children, and without any clear reason, shewas taken off to a prison camp in the Ukraine. Her husband hadbeen captured in the Bulge and taken to a POW camp in Wales.

When he was returned to Berlin, he spent weeks and weeksrounding up his children; two (Ilse, twelve and Paul, ten)were found in a detention school run by the Russians, and theoldest, Hans, fifteen, was found hiding in a cellar near theAlexander Platz. Their mother whereabouts remained a mystery,but they never stopped searching. She more than anything else,was needed to reknit them as family in that dire situation ofhunger, chaos, and fear.

Meanwhile in the Ukraine, Mrs Bergmeier learned through asympathetic commandant that her husband and family were tryingto keep together and find her. But, the rules allowed them torelease her for only two reasons (1) illness needing medicalfacilities beyond the camp in which case she would be sent toa Soviet Union hospital elsewhere and (2) pregnancy, in whichcase she would be returned to Germany as a liability.

She turned things over in her mind and finally asked, afriendly Volga German camp guard to impregnate her, which hedid. Her condition being medicaly verified, she was sent backto Berlin and to her family. They welcomed her with open arms,even when she told them how she had managed it. When the childwas born, they loved him more than the rest, on the view thatlittle Dietrich had done more for them than anybody.

When it was time for him to be christened, they took him tothe pastor on a Sunday afternoon. After the ceremony they sentDietrich home with the children and sat down in the pastor’s

study, to ask him whether they were right to feel as they didabout Mrs. Bergmeier and Dietrich. Should they be grateful tothe Volga German? Had Mrs. Bermeier done a good and rightthing?46

The situation ethicist would say yes and call it a sacrificialadultery.

6. Situation Ethics in Indian Context (A case study)

In this section we shall take example of two cases in Indiaand try to identify or justify the case from the situationalethical perspective.

Case 1. Imposition of Law on Human Trafficking

The Times of India (TOI) reports that maids in Mumbai andDelhi are trafficked from Jarkhand and that Maoists areinvolved in this racket. In order to check this, JarkhandPolice are now preparing to impose the ‘Unlawful ActivitiesPrevention Amendment Act, 2008, on traffickers’. The Newspaperagencies also claim that most of the trafficked victims arefrom a poor family background and lured by traffickers withfalse promises. Further it also claims that there are veryless police cases registered in Jarkhand for missing people,and as a matter of fact the CID branch claims that only 282cases of trafficking cases were registered since 2009-14, yeta NGO Bharatiya Kisan Sangh put the number of girls traffickedto metro cities as 42,000.47

Responses: The deontologist would gladly say that ‘UnlawfulActivities Prevention Amendment Act’ should be imposedimmediately to check human trafficking. The teleologist wouldsay that for the highest good, trafficking may be allowed ifit serves the society well. Contextual ethicist would say,taking note of the context, the people involved in trafficking

46 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 164-16547 Ambika Pandit, Maid in Mumbai, or Delhi Trafficked from Jarkhand, Timesof India, Friday July 18th 2014. 1 & 12

should be arrested and the economic condition of the people beimproved.

Result: Deontologist, Teleologist and Contextual ethicistswould end up in making unnecessary arrest and contribute tothe rise of authority abuse on the public.

Situational Ethics: Situational Ethicists would note thefollowing

1. What is wanted? Human Trafficking to be banned

2. By what means? By imposing an “Unlawful ActivitiesPrevention Amendment Act’

3. What is the drive or ‘wanting’ dynamic behind the act?The Act wants to come strong on the traffickers so thathuman are not sold as commodities.

4. What are the foreseeable consequences? Consequencesvaries,

i) If those traffickers who lure innocent poor peopleby giving them false promises are caught, justice isdone.

ii) If in generalizing trafficking, maids who are happywith their jobs and who depend on the earnings oftheir jobs are caught in this. Such maids might losetheir jobs and be sent back to their state ofeconomical struggle.

iii) Some people who sincerely help people from ruralJarkhand who are economically poor to get jobs incities might get into trouble with the law.

iv) Looking at the police statistic we see that policeseems to be ignoring or not aware of many cases oftrafficking, in this situation one can question thesincerity of the law enforcing agency.

v) If law enforcing authority uses this law as a meansto take bribe and aid in trafficking, the law willnot be of any help.

We can come up with many consequences which might possiblytake place, and so we cannot implement any single law or rule.Thus we need to deal with each case of trafficking orsuspected trafficking according to the situation of the caseand not generalize each case to be similar.

Case 2. Euthanasia

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011 theSupreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by meansof the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanentvegetative state.48 The decision was made as part of theverdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in avegetative state for 37 years at King Edward MemorialHospital. The high court rejected active euthanasia by meansof lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulatingeuthanasia in India, the court stated that its decisionbecomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enactsa suitable law. Active euthanasia, including theadministration of lethal compounds for the purpose of endinglife, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.49

Recently the Times of India once again came up with a newsthat says, ‘Doctors back right to die, want to be heard bySupreme Court’, Here Dr R.K. Mani50 argues that “Euthanasia isa very narrow definition. The term passive euthanasia furthercomplicates the matter: its no longer used in the medicalworld or in the legal world. He claims that this term has a

48 http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1516973.ece, Accessed on 28/07/14, 11:05 am.49 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Aruna-Shanbaug-case-SC-allows-passive-euthanasia-in-path-breaking-judgment/articleshow/7644557.cms?referral=PM, Accessed on28/07/14, 11:15 am.50 Dr. R.K. Mani is the ex-president of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine and lead author of the society’s positive paper on end of life andpalliative care in intensive care units.

Nazi hangover and so it must be properly addressed as ‘end oflife decision’ (Eol)”51,

A 43 old woman from Palampur in Himachal Pradesh, who isafflicted by rheumatoid arthritis52 twenty one years back hassought for the right to die for the second time, her plea wasrejected 6 years ago, Despite her disability Seema completedher masters degree in engineering sciences and informationtechnology from the Birla Institute of Technology and Science.She won a gold medal inspite of her disability and living onheavy doses of steroids53. After hearing about the recentnotice given by Supreme Court in regard to debate overeuthanasia she wrote to the Prime Minister once again for herplea to be heard, Fed up with daily battle Meena says “ Allthis is pointless now. I am unable to earn for myself. Myreltives have started giving up on me, this is frustrating asI cannot live with dignity.54

Responses: The deontologist would gladly say that ‘the bibledoes not allow murder’ and thus her plea should not beaccepted. The teleologist would say that for the highest good,as our goal is to live and not to die, and so she should begiven aid and kept alive for her own good. Contextual ethicistwould say, taking note of the context, the women seems to bemuch better than others who are living on a vegetativecondition and so her plea must be denied.

51 Rema Nagarajan, interview with Dr. R.K. Mani, Times of India, July 20 2014. 1352 Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that results in achronic, systemic inflammatory disorder that may affect many tissues andorgans, but principally attacks flexible (synovial) joints. It can be adisabling and painful condition, which can lead to substantial loss offunctioning and mobility if not adequately treated.53 steroids, technically known as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), aredrugs that are structurally related to the cyclic steroid ring system andhave similar effects to testosterone in the body. They increase proteinwithin cells, especially in skeletal muscles.54 Shimona Kanwar, Women seeks right to die 2nd time in 6 years, Times of India, July 20 2014. 13

Result: Deontologist, Teleologist and Contextual ethicistswould once again undermine the situation in which Meena isliving. It would result in prolonging the struggle of Meena.

Situational Ethics: Situational Ethicists would note thefollowing

1. What is wanted? Death

2. By what means? Through mercy killing (Euthanasia)

3. What is the drive or ‘wanting’ dynamic behind the act?Her inability to function normally and the pain sheundergoes physically and mentally or pressure fromfamily, friends and relatives to end her life and notgive burden to the family.

4. What are the foreseeable consequences? Consequencesvaries,

i) If Death is given, her pain will be cut off.

ii) If she is kept alive she will struggle through painand also the financial burden to take care of herillness.

iii) Even if she is not given the right to die, she hasevery possibility of committing suicide if she isdetermined to die.

iv) If she is pleading for death under the pressure ofexternal reasons and not from her own interest,giving her the right to die will be wrong.

v) Her plea seems to be more like a cry for aid and ifnot she would prefer death when we read herestatement given out of frustration, thus if aid isgiven she might want to live.

Thus taking notes of these situation one may conclude that,the case of Meena can be considered on many grounds. Once

again here situation ethicist would say that we need tounderstand the situation of Meena and then only after doing sodecide right and wrong. If Meena is really willing to give upher life even if aids are offered and other alternativesdiscussed with her, situation ethicist would say her case maybe considered in her case but it cannot be generalized in allcases where every plea is blindly granted.

7. Merits and Demerits of situation ethics

Some of the demerits observed by some scholars are, EbenGilbert noted, how can the situation determine in one instancewhat is “right or wrong” while at the same time allowing theindividual to remain “autonomous” by determining for himselfwhat is “right or wrong?”55 It also is important to note that“the deficiency in ethical individualism is too overt tocomment upon. If every man is a law to himself, we haveanarchy, not ethics.56 Carnell asserts regarding situationethics that, situation ethics is a horrible void which bringswith it, First it is self-contradictory, asserting that it isboth situational and autonomous. Second, it promotes anarchy.And third, it changes continually so that what is “right” onemoment may well turn out to be “wrong” the very next! What isthere within such a system that would recommend itself to us?57

Wayne Jackson wrote: “The theory is fraught with insuperablelogical difficulties. First, it (Situation Ethics) affirms,‘There are no absolutes.’ Are you sure? ‘Absolutely!’ Itclaims there are no rules save the rule of love, yet by theirown rules the situationists would define love.”58 Thus we seethat situation ethics have its own weakness if not propagatedand used properly, it have the tendency to include self

55 Eben Gilbert, Philosophy and New Testament Faith (McMinnville, TN: Published by author,1977), 4456 John Edward Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 32557 John Edward Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, 32658 Wayne Jackson, “False Doctrines about Human Conduct,” Doctrines and Commandments of Men: A Handbook on Religious Error, ed. John Waddey (Knoxville, TN:East Tennessee School of Preaching & Missions,1984), 330

interest in doing ethics further some scholars have pointedout some inconsistencies where Fletcher seems to contradicthimself. Thus a careful study and application of situationethics is required or else it might promote a tendency ofgoing against law and order of the society which are necessaryfor the governing and maintaining of balance of the society.

Dispite the possible flaws in situation ethics one cannotundermine the usefulness of situation ethics, it openedpersonalism and put people before rules, affirming Jesus whenhe said, ‘Sabbath was made for man not man for Sabbath.59

Situation ethics also promotes relativism where ethical lawsare made flexible, allowing individualized responses todifferent contexts. Rules are useful, but there areexceptions. “Sometimes situation arises where one have to pushaway principles and do the right thing”.60 FurthermoreSituation ethics is pragmatic and suggest solutions thatworks,61 Thus we can say that situational ethics thoughdangerous when is helpful in order to deal with specificsituations where the principles of ethics are questioned inorder to do the right thing.

8. Evaluation

Since the early church fathers and way back in the biblicalperiod, love was always promoted. Christianity in particularhas grown up in love, Love of God and the Love of fellowhuman. In doing ethics this principle is usually ignored bythose early ethicist who emphasized much on legalism and theirstance were rather confronting and not loving.

Joseph Fletcher thus comes in the picture of ethical debateand expounded on love (agape) as the only theme for doingethics. In his attempt to prove his stand, he brought aboutfour presuppositions and six fundamentals on which situationalethics is founded. In doing so Fletcher seems to be giving avalid argument on how to do ethics. But a closer look into it

59 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 5060 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 4461 Joseph Fletcher, Situation ethics, 41

seems to point to some flaws, which is both technical(methodological) and in terms of principles. Technical in thesense that Fletcher promoted that one must not use terms whichare absolute, but at the same time we see Fletcher talkingabout love as an absolute. In terms of principles Fletcheropened way for individualism to enter into the world of ethicsand thus a wide space of independence is given to individualsto decide right and wrong and in doing that they can goagainst ones’ principles if disobeying is right. This isdangerous because the power to decide right and wrong is givento individuals and furthermore the criteria of deciding rightand wrong is for the individual to decide, therefore thisopens a door for heretics to use this loophole to promoteindividual lust and desires (though Fletcher does not intendthis to happen). Thus we can evaluate Situation Ethics as amethod effective when used for constructive purpose butdangerous when it is used for tearing down social balance andnorms.

Let us evaluate a case, in a communal conflict between thehigh and the low caste, the following two scenarios tookplace:

a) A tribal woman saw that her suckling baby, ill, and crying,was betraying her and her other three children, and the wholecompany to the Caste fanatics. But she clung to her child, andthey were caught and killed.

b) A dalit woman, seeing how her crying baby endangeredanother trail party, killed it with her own hands, to keepsilence and reach a safe spot.

Which woman made the right decision?

This kind of situation seems to talk about supportingsituation ethics, but one must note that Fletcher was talkingabout agape which is a sacrificial love, here both motherseems to fall short of doing the right thing. In sacrificiallove, the mother would not allow her children to die rathershe would find a means to sacrifice herself for the sake ofher children.

Conclusion

Taking note of all the pros and cons of situation ethics wemay conclude that Fletcher indeed went deeper in search for anethic which meets the ethical standard of both God and man,yet critics have their own view that Fletcher promotedindividualism where nothing is ethical anymore and everythingis made legal by this attitude towards ethics. For Fletcherthere is no absolute right and wrong, because every right andwrong comes under different situation and one cannot use thesame method in all the situations. This seems to challenge theauthority of the Bible by telling the people to not obey thescripture but translate scriptural laws into ones’ own contextand ones’ own purpose wherein the scripture is consideredfallible.

Thus we can conclude that Situational ethics comes with bothpros and cons and one need to identify the pros and apply itand at the same time find out the cons and find a solution forit in order to make it legitimate.