ABSTRACT
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the concept of new morality in Joseph Fletcher. The universalist or absolute approach to the morality conundrum is met with Fletcher's ethics. What is situation ethics, for example, is one of the questions that this essay will focus on. What are the cornerstones of situational ethics? What kinds of moral decisions are there? This study is important because it demonstrates that some actions are not right or evil in and of themselves, but rather depend on the circumstances in which they occur. In other words, it approaches moral behavior in a distinctive and unusual way. The approach employed in this long essay is that of critical exposition, and evaluation. Thus we can evaluate Situation Ethics as a method effective when used for constructive purpose but dangerous when it is used for tearing down social balance and norms.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
Situational ethics is the approach that an act can’t be classed as right or wrong/ good or evil without first taking into account the influencing factors of that situation. it is based around the Christian principle of agape; which is a selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love and that the demands of love can run contrary to the law[i]. Situation Ethics is based on one principle i.e., Ethics is a matter of always acting in agape (love)[ii]. Thus the principle on which Situation Ethics decide right and wrong is only through love.
We can see a clearer definition of situation ethics where it is defined that, the deontologists of the Kantian, divine command, and secular positivism positions hold that specific acts are moral or immoral. The attention is given to an action; one that you are morally required to do or to refrain from doing. Situation ethics is a rule deontology; instead of being morally required to do an action, you are morally required to follow a rule. The rule of situation ethics is that you must unconditionally love your neighbor.[iii] Thus taking note of this two definition we can say that Situation Ethics is defined as a method of deciding right and wrong purely out of love for neighbor without having any kinds of conditions or terms in doing so.
Situation ethics are based on a single principle which enables man to enter every situation armed with the experience and precedents of past situations, but willing to lay them aside if the principle of love – agape – is better served by so doing. Situationism sees loving as the only prescribed duty and denies that there are any other, more specific, divine laws to keep, we cannot leave the matter there. This view holds its attractiveness to its identifying with what Fletcher called the whole mind-set of the modern man, our mind-set;[iv] an outlook which Paul Ramsey correctly if turgidly summed up as prejudice in favour of individualistic freedom, normlessness, traditionless contemporaneity, and modern technical reason‘.Situation ethics denies that any action is intrinsically evil. This assertion is a reaction to Christian ethics which maintains that certain actions are intrinsically evil, meaning that such actions are always even whenever and wherever they are performed irrespective of the situation in which they are performed. Fletcher, in his book, Situation Ethics, he maintains that:
Every situation is unique, consequently the same kind of action cannot remain morally the same in all situation. Whether an action is to be considered as good or evil depends on the situation in which it is performed. Goodness or badness is not something that can be found inherent in certain actions as properties of such actions. They are not properties inherent in actions, but predicates, and whether an action is to be predicated with the term
―Good‖ or ―Bad‖ depends on the situation in which it is performed.[v]
The above quotation shows that an action may be good at a point and bad at another point. As a consequence, the generalization of an action as an evil act is not acceptable and tenable. An action, rather than follow a stated and universalised moral standard in judging an action as right or wrong, we should always act in accordance within the confines of a particular situation which is considered as a morally right and significant action as far as it will promote morally good action and bring about the greatest amount of happiness.
1.2 Statement of the problem
The issue at hand is one of moral decision-making. What should one do in a morally critical situation? Life throws us situations in which we must make difficult judgments. When you say yes to one perceived good, you often have to say no to another. For us, the question “what should I do in this situation?” causes conflict. Making decisions is a necessary part of life. Man strives to make the best decisions possible because making the wrong option can be harmful to both the individual and the community. As a result, according to B. O. Eboh, “it is often difficult to make a moral decision in a given situation because of the many additional facts that may surround such a situation.[1]
The point is that there are many realities to be taken into consideration in moral decision-making. At this point, one may ask: “what moral decision am I to take in a moral situation?”
1.3 Aim and Objectives of the study
The aim of this study is to study an appraisal of Joseph Fletcher new morality. The study is to critically examine Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics on New Morality. Fletcher’s ethics is a response to universalist or absolute approach to the question of morality
The objectives of this study are;
- To examine the concept of situation ethics
- To critically examine the fundamental principles of situation ethics
- To understand how situation ethics can be applied to contemporary issues such as the morality
1.4 Scope of the study
The study focuses on the Philosophical Appraisal of Joseph Fletcher’s New Morality.
1.5 Significance of the study
The relevance of this study is that it shows that some actions are not right or wrong in themselves, but situations determine their rightness or wrongness of actions. In other words, it treats moral actions differently and uniquely. Consequently, Fletcher’s situation ethics is teleological and gives preference to consequences as a determinant factor of moral decision making.
This study will be of immense benefit to other researchers who intend to know more on this study and can also be used by non-researchers to build more on their research work. This study contributes to knowledge and could serve as a guide for other study.
1.6 Methodology
This is a qualitative research. The qualitative method is the most appropriate for this research because it seeks to understand a given research problem or topic from the perspectives of the local population it involves. It is used to uncover trends in thought and opinions and can delve deeper into research problems. Qualitative research is especially effective in obtaining culturally specific information about the values, opinions, behaviors, and social contexts of particular populations. In this case, the book written by Joseph Fletcher ” New morality ” situationism. will be the focal point.
The approach I am employing in this long essay is that of critical exposition, and evaluation. Moreover, the deep attitude of thinking and rational scrutiny employed in carrying out this task, will make itself evident in the assessment of religion and freewill. Equally the intellectual exercise will be proved by how far, I am able to reconcile the two concepts. Consequently offering practical solutions that will help get rid of religious rancour.
1.7 Clarification of concepts
Ethics: Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that “involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior”. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology
Morality: Morality refers to the set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. It’s what societies determine to be “right” and “acceptable.
Sectionalism: the theory that human behaviour is determined by surrounding circumstances rather than by personal qualities. Under the controversy of person–situation debate, situationism is the theory that changes in human behavior are factors of the situation rather than the traits a person possesses.Behavior is believed to be influenced by external, situational factors rather than internal traits or motivations. Situationism therefore challenges the positions of trait theorists, such as Hans Eysenck or Raymond B. Cattell. This is an ongoing debate that has truth to both sides; psychologists are able to prove each of the view points through human experimentation.
