Notes: Importance & Challenge of Ethics (Part I)
I.
Introduction
·
Philosophical treatise which:
o
studies human behaviour and
o
tries to determine what is right or
wrong behaviour.
·
Greek ‘ethos’ and the Latin ‘mores’
which mean ‘custom’, ‘ways of behaviour’, ‘human character’
·
It is also called moral philosophy.
What
is the Concern of Ethics?
·
In man a spontaneous awareness of a
distinction between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour is an indubitable fact.
·
But philosophy is not about mere
registration of facts: it tries to:
o
reflect on the ‘meaningfulness’ of such
facts,
o
establish them (or reject them) on a
rational basis,
o
understand their implications,
o
draw their practical consequences, and
o
above all intuit their ultimate cause
(if any).
Philosophical
Assumptions
·
Study of ethics is conditioned by some
philosophical assumptions, which are taken as philosophically established in
other treatises.
·
Three principal ones are:
o
the possibility of meta-empirical
knowledge,
o
the ontological structure of reality,
and
o
man as a rational and free being
(philosophically established in critical, ontology and psychology
respectively).
Subject-Matter
of Ethics
·
Therefore, ethics is an attempt: to
‘understand’:
o
what is and what is not right human behaviour,
o
the empirical and meta-empirical
‘ground’, if any, of the distinction between right and wrong behaviour,
o
to see whether the conclusions thus
drawn can serve as objective norms for practical conduct.
Importance
of Ethics
·
Importance is obvious.
·
Historically, man has always sought to
know how to lead a ‘good’ life and to draw up rules of conduct.
·
Thinkers of all cultures tried to
explain in what this ‘good’ life consisted and, especially, why precisely it
was ‘good’.
·
It is not so much that traditional
moral values are questioned (e.g. the ‘just’ war, inviolability of life in
cases of the hopelessly suffering and of unwanted pregnancies, sexual
intercourse only between the legally married, indissolubility of marriage,
etc.), but, more radically still, that the very ‘meaningfulness’ of an
unchanging and universally valid morality is brought into question.
Causes
of Modern Questioning of Morality
·
Not easy to pin down
·
Spread of education, advances in
science and technology, problems arising from modern way of living like the
ever increasing urbanization, easier communication media, faster means of
travel whereby people of one culture come in closer contact with people of
another culture, etc are some of the causes.
·
Moral thinking is intimately linked
with philosophical thinking in general: these causes, whatever they might be,
are to be sought for on a deeper human level.
·
Human person, perhaps, is not so much
asking about the morality of this or that human act, but, more deeply still,
about himself: the meaning of his life, the direction of human history, the
significance of the human world he lives in, the ambit of his knowledge and the
possibility of his ever getting an answer to the questions he asks.
Ethics, of course, cannot dream of suggesting answers to
such radical questions. But it might well prove to be a ‘way of approach’ to
questions which lie beyond its own field of enquiry.
II.
Challenge of Situation Ethics
What
is Situation Ethics?
Situational ethics,
or situation ethics, is a teleological and consequential theory of ethics
concerned with the outcome of an action as opposed to an action being intrinsically
wrong as in deontological theories.
Original
& Evolution of the Idea
·
The theory was principally developed in the 1960s by
the Christian Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher in two books, The Classic
Treatment and Situation Ethics.
·
Fletcher argued that sometimes moral principles can be
cast aside in certain situations if love (agape) is best served for in
Christianity 'Love is the ultimate law’.
·
Fletcher believed that establishing an ethical system
based on love was the best way to express the Christian principle to 'love thy
neighbour' taught in the Bible.
·
He believed that there are no absolute laws other than
the law of Agapē love and all the other laws were secondary and subsumed by
agape in order to achieve the greatest amount of this love. This means that all
the other laws are only contingent on agape, and thus they may be broken if
other courses of action would result in more love.
Thus, in the case of situational ethics, the ends can
justify the means.
Situation
Ethics & Utilitarianism
Because of its
consequentialism, situational ethics is often confused with utilitarianism,
because utilitarianism's aim is the greatest good for the greatest number,
although situational ethics focuses more on creating the greatest amount of
love and it also has different origins.
Having said that,
however, situational ethics can also be classed under the ethical theory genre
of 'proportionalism' which says that 'It is never right to go against a
principle unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it
Fletcher's
'Three Possible Approaches' to Ethics
Fletcher argued that
there were only three possible approaches to ethics, which he identified as the
legalistic approach, the antinomian approach, and the situational approach:
The
legalistic approach
·
Legalistic ethics has a set of prefabricated moral
rules or laws. Many western religions, such as Judaism and Christianity have a
very legalistic approach to ethics. E.g., through history, Christianity has
focused on Natural Law and Biblical commandments, such as the Ten Commandments
of Moses.
·
Fletcher states that life runs into many difficulties
when its complexities require additional laws. For example, when one initially
establishes that murder is morally wrong, one may then have to make exceptions
for killing for self-defence, killing in war, killing unborn children, etc.
·
Fletcher argues that the error of a legalistic
approach to ethics has been made by Catholics through their adherence to
Natural Law and by Protestants through puritanical observance of the texts in
the Bible. As such, Fletcher rejects legalistic ethics.
The
antinomian approach
·
Antinomian ethics, is literally the opposite to
legalism, it does not imply an ethical system at all.
·
An antinomian enters decisions making as if each
situation was unique and making moral decisions is based on the matter of
spontaneity.
·
Fletcher argues that the antinomianism approach to
ethical decision making is unprincipled so it too is an unacceptable approach
to ethics.
Principles
of Situational Ethics
Situational ethics
relies on one principle—what best serves love.
According to
Fletcher, Christian love is unconditional and unsentimental. Situational ethics
is based on the golden rule "love your neighbour as yourself" and
altruism, which is putting others before yourself and showing agape towards
everyone.
It agrees on reason
being the instrument of moral judgments, but disagrees that the good is to be
disconcerned from the nature of things. All moral decisions depend on what the
most loving thing to do is.
Nevertheless,
Fletcher felt compelled to outline his theory in ten principles, which he split
into the four working presuppositions and the six fundamental principles.
The four working
presuppositions
·
Pragmatism - This is that the course of action must be
practical and work.
·
Relativism - All situations are always relative;
situational ethicists try to avoid such words as 'never' and 'always'.
·
Positivism - The whole of situational ethics relies
upon the fact that the person freely chooses to believe in agape love as
described by Christianity.
·
Personalism - Whereas the legalist thinks people
should work to laws, the situational ethicist believes that laws are for the
benefit of the people.
The six fundamental
principles
·
First proposition: Only one thing is intrinsically
good; namely love: nothing else at all.
·
Second proposition: The ruling norm of Christian
decision is love: nothing else
·
Third proposition: Love and Justice are the same, for
justice is love distributed, nothing else.
·
Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating
its duties, obligations, opportunities, resources...Justice is love coping with
situations where distribution is called for.
·
Fourth proposition: Love wills the neighbour's good,
whether we like him or not.
·
Fifth proposition: Only the end justifies the means,
nothing else.
·
Sixth proposition: Love's decisions are made
situationally, not prescriptively.
Criticisms
·
Complicated: On writing Situation Ethics, Fletcher
claimed that, like its predecessor utilitarianism, the theory was a simple and
practical one, hinging around one single principle of utility which is agape
love. However, he then goes on to attempt to define agape love and in the
process creates more and more principles thereby making situational ethics more complicated and less
practical than the original utilitarianism.
·
John Robinson: People could not
take this sort of responsibility, remarking that "It will all descend into
moral chaos."
·
Individualistic: Situational ethics
is individualistic and therefore may give people an excuse for not obeying the
rules when it suits them. For example, if someone wants to do something badly
enough, they are likely to be able to justify it to themselves. Agape love is an
ideal, whereas some have argued that humanity is a practical species full of
selfishness and other flaws.
·
Subjective: Situational ethics
is subjective, because decisions are made by the individual from within the
perceived situation thus calling into question the reliability of that choice.
[To be contd.]
[This notes is prepared primarily on the basis of the IGNOU Study material on Philosophy- Ethics and certain other materials. These notes are provided here for academic reference for students. No copyright to the above is being claimed.]
Comments
Post a Comment