Situation Ethics

Situation ethics began in the 1940s and 1950s as a movement among Roman Catholic theologians who saw in the post–World War II environment a constellation of unique moral challenges that the traditions of law and casuistry were not equipped to address. Law and casuistry were tied to hierarchy [Page 776]and authority, and the experience of World War II showed how immoral following orders could be. So these theologians sought a way to listen for the voice of God in complex, particular circumstances. Spurning rules and paradigm cases as being too rigid, they argued that truly moral decision making was marked by deep personal responsibility and dialogue. But these theologians failed to persuade their superiors. In 1952, Pope Pius XII put an end to the movement among Roman Catholics by condemning situation ethics as dangerously subjective and relativistic.

Situation ethics returned as a Protestant debate in the 1960s. Popularized as “the new morality” by Episcopalian ethics professor Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), this incarnation of situation ethics was championed as the golden mean between legalism at one extreme and licentiousness at the other. According to Fletcher, situationists are neither slaves to rules and regulations nor heedless of the needs of others. Rather, they follow only one rule, and that is to do the loving thing in every situation they face. Fletcher argued that no behavior is right or wrong intrinsically; more accurately, behaviors are right only if they lead to good consequences and wrong only if they cause harm. “The situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems,” Fletcher wrote. “Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so” (1966, p. 26). Fletcher summarized his situation ethics in six propositions: “Love only is always good, love is the only norm, love and justice are the same, love is not liking, love justifies its means, and love decides there and then” (1966, p. 9).

In philosophical terms, situation ethics falls under the category of teleology, a way of justifying behavior according to consequences rather than principles (the ends justify the means). More specifically, it is a type of utilitarianism (the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people). Because situation ethics came out of the Christian faith, it is sometimes referred to as act-agapism, referring to agape, the Greek word for selfless love used in the New Testament. In actagapism, good emerges when the individual chooses the most loving course of action on a case-by-case basis.

Striking a responsive chord at a time when traditions were being questioned, situation ethics found a wide range of business applications. In The Moral Crisis in Management, Thomas Petit wrote, “The situational model… best fits the American manager's self-image of a tough-minded individual who demands freedom and is willing and able to be responsible in its exercise” (1967, p. 167). Fletcher himself applied situation ethics to business management, asking, “What, in the situation, is the most constructive decision to make, as measured by a primary concern for people, and not for profits alone nor only for… one company's sake?” (1967, p. 167). In an example of a clothing manufacturer who pays an illegal kickback to keep an essential order from a department store chain, Fletcher said that the manufacturer's bribe was the right thing to do in the circumstances. He broke a law certainly, but more importantly he kept his employees working and did not have to cut their pay. In this case, following the law would have devastated his employees and their families.

...