Situation Ethics by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
SITUATIONISM DEFINED
In the mid-1960s, Joseph Fletcher published the book, Situation Ethics, thereby securing for himself the dubious distinction, “the Father of Situation Ethics” (1966).---- Situationism goes all the way back to Eden when Satan posed to Eve circumstances that he alleged would justify setting aside God’s law (Genesis 3:4-6).
Fletcher summarized his ideas in terms of six
propositions that he came to identify as “the fundamentals of Christian
conscience” (1967, pp. 13-27). This ethical theory stresses “freedom from
prefabricated decisions and prescriptive rules” in exchange for “the relative or
nonabsolute and variant or nonuniversal nature of the situational approach” (p.
7). “Right and wrong depend upon the situation” (p. 14). The “situation” is
defined as “the relative weight of the ends and means and motives and
consequences all taken together, as weighed by love” (p. 23). The situation
ethicist feels free to “tinker with Scripture” and to form “a coalition with the
utilitarian principle of the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ ” (pp.
18-19; cf. p. 56).
Situationism is simply ethical relativism, in that it moves “away from code
ethics, from stern and ironbound do’s and don’ts, from prescribed conduct and
legalistic morality” (p. 24). Situationism bears close affinity with
existentialism (pp. 26, 77,234). “Imitative practice,” uniformity and
conformity, and “metaphysical morals” are all disdained (pp. 26,106,240).
Objective principles and abstract rules are repudiated, in exchange for “freedom
and openness” (pp. 72,76,233,235). Concrete absolutes are viewed unfavorably as
“authoritarianism” and “rules-bound thinking” (p. 240).
Situationism calls for “creative” moral conduct, accommodation to “pluralism,”
“freedom,” and “openness,” as well as “spontaneity and variety in moral
decision-making” (pp. 78,123-124,235,241). Constant emphasis is placed on “love”
as the only intrinsic good, with the loving thing to do depending on each
situation that arises. Since “love” is the only inherent, intrinsic value, the
moral quality or value of every thing or action is extrinsic and
contingent—depending upon the situation (pp. 14,26,34,38,55,76,123-124).
Though Fletcher offered formal expression to these concepts several decades ago,
it would not be an exaggeration to state that situationism has “gone to seed” in
American society, and now constitutes the prevailing approach to making ethical
decisions. As pollster guru George Barna remarked in a 2003 survey of American
moral behavior:
This is reflective of a nation where morality is
generally defined according to one’s feelings. In a postmodern society, where
people do not acknowledge any moral absolutes, if a person feels justified in
engaging in a specific behavior, then they do not make a connection with the
immoral nature of that action.... Until people recognize that there are moral
absolutes and attempt to live in harmony with them, we are likely to see a
continued decay of our moral foundations (2003, emp. added).
FLAWS IN SITUATIONAL THINKING
At least two foundational errors cause Fletcher’s theory
of situationism to be irreparably flawed. The first is the failure to grasp the
Bible’s identification of the central concern of human beings: to love, honor,
glorify, and obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:37; 1
Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:9; 10:5; 1 Peter 4:11). Fletcher is virtually
silent on this dimension of human responsibility. Instead, he focuses his entire
theory on love for fellow man. While love for fellow man is certainly crucial to
Christian ethics, and is absolutely mandatory for the Christian (e.g., Luke
10:25-37), it must be viewed in its rightful position, subsumed beneath the
greater, higher responsibility of loving God. One cannot love God without loving
one’s neighbor (e.g., 1 John 4:20-21). But, theoretically, one could love
another person without loving God. Consequently, love for fellow man must be
viewed in the larger framework of focusing one’s life on pleasing God first and
foremost.
Since this must be the singular all-consuming passion of human beings, God’s
Word must be consulted in order to determine how to love God and fellow man. In
other words, to comply with the number one responsibility in life, one must
consult the absolute, prefabricated, prescriptive, ironbound do’s and don’ts of
Scripture! This, by definition, is love for God (1 John 5:3; John 14:15). It
follows, then, that Fletcher is incorrect in identifying the only intrinsic good
as “love” for fellow man (1967, p. 14). According to the Bible, intrinsic good
includes fraternal love. But superceding even this love is filial love, i.e.,
love for God (Matthew 22:36-37; cf. Warren, 1972, pp. 87ff.). Consequently, God
defines what love entails in man’s treatment of both God and fellow man. But
those definitions are found in the Bible in the form of prescriptive rules,
regulations, and ironclad do’s and don’ts.
The second fundamental flaw of Fletcher’s brand of situationism is the subtle
redefinition of “love.” While Fletcher was correct when he identified love as an
active determination of the will rather than an emotion (pp. 20-21), his idea of
“love” is materialistic and secular, rather than scriptural and spiritual.
“Love,” to Fletcher, is what human beings decide is “good” or “best” in a given
situation. This humanistic approach allows man and his circumstances to become
the criteria for defining morality, rather than allowing God to define the
parameters of moral behavior: “The metaphysical moralist with his intrinsic
values and laws says, ‘Do what is right and let the chips fall where they may.’
The situational moralist says, ‘Whether what you do is right or not depends
precisely upon where the chips fall!’ ” (p. 26).
But the Bible simply does not place law and love in contradistinction to each
other. In fact, according to the Bible, one cannot love either God or fellow man
without law. The only way for an individual to know how to love is to go to the
Bible and discern there the specifics of a loving behavior. When Paul declared,
“love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:19), he did not mean that it is
possible to love one’s neighbor while dispensing with the law (cf. Fletcher,
1967, p. 70; Hook, 1984, p. 31). Rather, he meant that when you conduct yourself
in a genuinely loving manner, you are automatically acting in harmony with the
law (i.e., you are not killing, stealing, coveting, bearing false witness,
etc.). God, in His laws, defined and pinpointed how to love. To treat any of
God’s laws as optional, flexible, or occasional is to undermine the very
foundations of love.
In situationism, human beings become the standard of morality. The human mind,
with its subjective perceptions of the surrounding moral environment, becomes
the authority, in direct conflict with the words of an inspired prophet: “O
Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to
direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). The psalmist certainly could be accused
of being a “metaphysical moralist with his intrinsic values and laws.” In his
great psalm on the law of the Lord (Psalm 119), the writer conveyed his
conviction that objective, prescriptive rules and prefabricated principles were
indispensable to his survival. Observe carefully a small portion of his
unrelenting extolment of divine laws: “You have commanded us to keep Your
precepts diligently” (vs. 4); “I would not be ashamed, when I look into all Your
commandments” (vs. 6); “Behold, I long for Your precepts” (vs. 40); “I will
delight myself in Your commandments, which I love” (vs. 47); “I will never
forget Your precepts, for by them You have given me life” (vs. 93); “Through
Your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way” (vs. 104);
“The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous judgments
endures forever” (vs. 160); “My soul keeps Your testimonies, and I love them
exceedingly. I keep Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my ways are
before You” (vss. 167-168).
To Fletcher, “love” directed toward one’s fellow man is a materialistically
defined love that he calls “personalism.” “Personalism” is “the ethical view
that the highest good, the summum bonum or first-order value, is human welfare
and happiness” (1967, p. 33). Fletcher’s ethical humanism is “a personalist
devotion to people, not to things or abstractions such as ‘laws’ or general
principles. Personal interests come first, before the natural or Scriptural or
theoretical or general or logical or anything else” (p. 34, emp. added). What
such assertions really mean in practical, behavioral terms is that, ultimately,
human beings may do whatever they deem “good” or “best.” A glance at Fletcher’s
illustrations shows that the most “loving” decisions are those that ease
physical pain, alleviate hardship, lessen emotional suffering, or accommodate
human desire and personal preference. For Fletcher, “evil” is physical
imprisonment, separation from family, the hardship of unjust labor, an
unpleasant marriage, or lack of commitment to a person (e.g., pp. 32,39). “Human
happiness” is, by definition, what human beings think will make them happy—not
what God says actually will bring true happiness—even in the midst of, and while
enduring, unjust or unpleasant circumstances.
Sin, in situationism, is not “transgression of God’s law” (1 John 3:4). Rather,
“sin is the exploitation or use of persons” (p. 37). It is withholding what a
person perceives to be the means to personal happiness. But this understanding
of sin is a radical redefinition of love and happiness in comparison to the
Bible. In contrast, the Scriptures make clear that “intrinsic evil on the purely
physical level does not exist” and “neither pain nor suffering is intrinsically
evil” (Warren, 1972, pp. 93,40). Since sin (i.e., violation of God’s law) is the
only intrinsic evil, “evil” and “good” exist only in relation to the ultimate
will of God (pp. 39,41).
By Fletcher’s definitions, many people in Bible history were not sinners as
previously supposed, but were, in fact, mature, responsible individuals who
acted lovingly: Eve (Genesis 3:1-6); Cain (Genesis 4:3); Lot and Lot’s wife
(Genesis 13:12; 19:16,26); Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3); the Israelites
(Numbers 21:4-6); Balaam (Numbers 22-24); Saul (1 Samuel 13:9; 15:9,21); and
Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6ff.). On the other hand, if situationism is correct, many
persons in the Bible were not righteous, as is claimed, but were slaves to
abstract rules and principles, and were unloving in their conduct toward their
fellow man, including: Noah (Genesis 6; 2 Peter 2:5); Joseph (Genesis 39:7-12);
Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14:6-9); Phinehas (Numbers 25:6-9); Joshua (Joshua
7:24-25); and John the baptizer (Mark 6:18-19). Here were people who set aside
the preferences of their fellow man, ignored their contemporaries’ desire for
“happiness” and “self-fulfillment,” and instead followed divine
prescriptions—even though those precepts were considered to be contrary to the
consensus view.
Taking into account the components of “the situation” as Fletcher
recommends—“the end, means, motive, and foreseeable consequences” (1967, p.
25)—Uzzah would have to receive Fletcher’s sanction as a loving, moral person (2
Samuel 6:1-7). His motive was unquestionably good, since he wanted to avoid the
unpleasant end and foreseeable consequences of the Ark of the Covenant toppling
from its precarious resting place. The means that Uzzah used were the only ones
available to him at that particular instant in time. His only mistake, which
resulted in his immediate execution by God, was his failure to give heed to the
prefabricated, prescriptive, abstract, legalistic, absolute, metaphysical,
ironbound “don’t” of Numbers 4:15,—i.e., “don’t touch!” [For a useful treatment
of situation ethics, especially for young people, see Ridenour, 1969].
SITUATIONISM ILLUSTRATED
The true nature of any false philosophy or ethical system
is often apparent in the concrete examples that advocates set forth as
illustrative of their position. Fletcher is no exception in this regard. He
approves of divorce “if the emotional and spiritual welfare of both parents and
children in a particular family can be served best” (1967, p. 23, emp. in
orig.). He would approve of the suicide of a captured soldier under torture to
avoid betraying comrades to the enemy (p. 15). Two additional instances are seen
in the following comments. Fletcher said that he knew of a case, in which
committing adultery foreseeably brought about the release of a whole family from
a very unjust but entirely legal exploitation of their labor on a small farm
which was both their pride and their prison. Still another situation could be
cited in which a German mother gained her release from a Soviet prison farm and
reunion with her family by means of an adulterous pregnancy. These actions would
have the situationist’s solemn but ready approval (p. 32).
Additional examples of situation ethics at work are seen in the statements: “Lying could be more Christian than telling the truth. Stealing could be better than respecting private property” (p. 34). Fletcher asks: “Is the girl who gives her chastity for her country’s sake any less approvable than the boy who gives his leg or his life? No!” (p. 39). Further, a couple who cannot marry legally or permanently but live together faithfully and honorably and responsibly, are living in virtue—in Christian love. In this kind of Christian sex ethic, the essential ingredients are caring and commitment.... There is nothing against extramarital sex as such, in this ethic, and in some cases it is good (pp. 39-40, emp. in orig.).
Consider also the situation ethicist’s view of abortion:
When anybody “sticks to the rules,” even though people
suffer as a consequence, that is immoral. Even if we grant, for example, that
generally or commonly it is wrong or bad or undesirable to interrupt a
pregnancy, it would nevertheless be right to do so to a conceptus following rape
or incest, at least if the victim wanted an abortion (p. 36; cf. Hook, 1984, p.
34).
When one abandons the objective standard conveyed by the
eternal God from Whom flows infinite goodness, the means for assessing human
behavior is then “up for grabs,” and is pitched into the subjective realm of
human opinion in which “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (Judges
21:25). Such a person will inevitably begin misrepresenting the biblical
treatment of Christian liberty and freedom, and will maintain that “freedom in
Christ” means being relieved of the “burden” of a “legal code.”
The Bible certainly speaks of the wonderful freedom that one may enjoy in
Christ. But biblical freedom is a far cry from the release from restriction,
restraint, and deserved guilt touted by the antinomian agents of change (cf.
Hook, 1984, pp. 43ff.). The Bible does not speak of the “flexibility and
elasticity” of God’s laws (pp. 29-31). Rather, with sweeping and precise
terminology, Jesus articulated the sum and substance of exactly what it means to
be “free in Christ.” In a specific context in which He defended the validity of
His own testimony (John 8:12-59), He declared the only basis upon which an
individual may be His disciple. To be Christ’s disciple, one must “continue” in
His word (vs. 31). That is, one must live a life of obedience to the will of
Christ (Warren, 1986, pp. 33-37). Genuine discipleship is gauged by one’s
persistent and meticulous compliance with the words of Jesus.
The freedom that Jesus offers through obedience to His truth is noted in His
interchange with the Jews over slavery. Those who sin (i.e., transgress God’s
will—1 John 3:4) are slaves who may be set free only by permitting Christ’s
teachings to have free course within them (vs. 34-37). This kind of freedom is
the only true freedom. Genuine freedom is achieved by means of “obedience to
righteousness” (Romans 6:16). Freedom from sin and spiritual death is possible
only by obedience to God (vs. 51).
...
CONCLUSION
Probably no greater threat to the stability of society
exists in our day than the humanistic, antinomian philosophy of situationism
....
The mindset of today’s situationist is not new. We humans do not generally
regard rules and regulations as positive phenomena. We usually perceive them as
infringements on our freedom—deliberate attempts to restrict our behavior and
interfere with our “happiness.” Like children, we may have a tendency to display
resentment and a rebellious spirit when faced with spiritual requirements. We
may feel that God is being arbitrary and merely burdening our lives with
haphazard, insignificant strictures. But God would never do that. He never has
placed upon anyone any requirement that was inappropriate, unnecessary, or
unfair. During the Israelites’ final encampment on the plains of Moab prior to
their entrance into Canaan, Moses articulated a most important principle: “The
Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes...for our good always”
(Deuteronomy 6:24, emp. added; cf. 10:13). God never would ask us to do anything
that is harmful to us. He does not restrict us nor exert His authority over us
in order to purposely make us unhappy. Quite the opposite! God knows exactly
what will make us happy. Compliance with His Word will make a person happy (John
13:17; James 1:25), exalted (James 4:10), righteous (Romans 6:16; 1 John 3:7),
and wise (Matthew 24:45-46; 7:24).
Those who wish to relieve themselves of restriction will continue to invent ways
to circumvent the intent of Scripture. They will continue to “twist” (2 Peter
3:16) and “handle the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2). They will
exert pressure on everyone else to “back off,” “lighten up,” and embrace a more
tolerant understanding of ethical conduct. But the “honest and good heart” (Luke
8:15) will “take heed how [he/she] hears” (vs.18). The good heart is the one who
“reads...hears...and keeps those things which are written therein” (Revelation
1:3, emp. added). After all, no matter how negative they may appear to humans,
no matter how difficult they may be to obey, they are given “for our good.”
The Bible simply does not countenance situation ethics. Jesus always admonished
people to “keep the commandments” (e.g., Matthew 19:17). He kept God’s commands
Himself—perfectly (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26). And He is “the
author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Barna, George (2003), “Morality Continues to Decay,” [On-line], URL:
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?Press
ReleaseID=152&Reference=F.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1955), Ethics, ed. Eberhard Bethge (London: SCM Press).
Brunner, Emil (1947), The Divine Imperative, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia,
PA: Westminster).
Chesser, Frank (2001), The Spirit of Liberalism (Huntsville, AL: Publishing
Designs).
Cox, Harvey (1965), The Secular City (New York: MacMillan).
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Fletcher, Joseph (1966), Situation Ethics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Fletcher, Joseph (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Hook, Cecil (1984), Free in Christ (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by
author).
Hook, Cecil (1990), Free to Change (New Braunfels, TX: Privately published by
author).
Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas, TX: Word).
McGarvey, J.W. (1910), Biblical Criticism (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel
Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford
University Press), second edition.
Metzger, Bruce M. (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New
York: United Bible Society).
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932), Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles
Scribner’s).
Ridenour, Fritz (1969), The Other Side of Morality (Glendale, CA: Regal Books).
Robinson, John A.T. (1963), Honest to God (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR:
National Christian Press).
Warren, Thomas B. (1986), The Bible Only Makes Christians Only and the Only
Christians (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville,
TN: Gospel Advocate).
Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.