EXPLORING SITUATIONAL ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS: THE SENSITIVITIES OF MORAL COMPASS – CHAPTER -02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: What is Situational Ethics, The Meaning & Context of Agape, The Three Views Of Situational Ethics)

Link to Chapter 01:

EXPLORING SITUATIONAL ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS: THE SENSITIVITIES OF MORAL COMPASS – CHAPTER -01

The Four Working Principles of Situationism

Principle 1. Pragmatism

The situationalist follows a strategy, which is pragmatic. “Pragmatism” is a well worked-out philosophical position adopted by the likes of John Dewey (1859–1952), Charles Peirce (1839–1914) and William James (1842–1910). Fletcher does not want his theory associated with these views and rejects all the implications of this type of “Pragmatism”.

What makes his view pragmatic is very simple. It is just his attraction to moral views, which do not try to work out what to do in the abstract, but rather explores how moral views might play out in each real life situations.

Principle 2: Relativism

Even with his rejection of Antinomianism and his acceptance of one supreme principle of morality, Fletcher, surprisingly, still calls himself a relativist. It is just an appeal for people to stop trying to “lay down the law” for all people in all contexts. If situations vary then consequences vary and what we ought to do will change accordingly. This is a very simple, unsophisticated idea and just means that what is right or wrong is related to the situation we are in.

Principle 3: Positivism

His use of “positivism” is not the philosophical idea with the same name but rather is where any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian’s faith propositions, is a decision — not a conclusion. It is a choice, not a result reached by force of logic or reasoning, rather it is a decision we take.

Principle 4: Personalism

Love is something that is experienced by people. So Personalism is the view that if we are to maximize love we need to consider the person in a situation — the “who” of a situation.

Conscience as a Verb not a Noun

“Conscience” plays a role in working out what to do. Conscience is not the name of an internal faculty nor is it a sort of internal “moral compass”.

Fletcher refers to conscience as a verb. Imagine we have heard some bullies laughing because they have sent our friend some offensive texts and we are trying to decide whether or not to check his phone to delete the texts before he does. The old “noun” view of conscience would get us to think about this in the abstract, perhaps reason about it.

Instead, we need to be in the situation, and experience the situation, we need to be doing (hence “verb”) the experiencing. Maybe, we might conclude that it is right to go into our friend’s phone, maybe we will not but whatever happens the outcome could not have been known beforehand. What our conscience would have us do is revealed when we live in the world and not through armchair reflection.

The Six Propositions of Situation Ethics

1: Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love, nothing else at all

There is one thing which is intrinsically good, that is good irrespective of context, namely love. If love is what is good, then an action is right or wrong in as far as it brings about the most amount of love.

Agapeic Calculus is a moral framework rooted in the pursuit of maximizing neighbor welfare for the greatest number of individuals within a community. Unlike conventional notions of love centered on emotional attachment or desire, this concept emphasizes the broader notion of concern for the well-being of others. In this context, “welfare” encompasses not only material prosperity but also factors such as health, happiness, and overall quality of life. By prioritizing the collective welfare of the community over individual interests, Agapeic Calculus seeks to foster a society characterized by compassion, empathy, and a commitment to the common good. In essence, it advocates for a calculus of altruism and ethical decision-making that aims to uplift and support as many neighbors as possible, thereby cultivating a more just and harmonious social order.

2: The ruling norm of decision is love, nothing else

Given our modern context and how people typically talk of “love” it is probably unhelpful to even call it “love”. For instance, we will all recall the following news item. In February 1993, Mrs Johnson’s son, Laramiun Byrd, 20, was shot in the head by 16-year-old Oshea Israel after an argument at a party in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mrs Johnson subsequently forgave her son’s killer and after he had served a 17-year sentence for the crime, asked him to move in next door to her. She was not condoning his actions, nor will she ever forget the horror of those actions, but she does love her son’s killer. That love is agápē.

Reference:

Mary Johnson and Oshea Israel

3: Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else

Practically all moral problems we encounter can be boiled down to an apparent tension between “justice” on the one hand and “love” on the other. Consider a recent story:

This could be expressed as a supposed tension between “love” of family and doing the right thing — “justice”. Imagine we are trying to decide what is the best way to distribute food given to a charity, or how a triage nurse might work in a war zone. In these cases we might put the problem like this. We want to distribute fairly, but how should we do this? To act justly or fairly is precisely to act in love. “Love is justice, justice is love”.

4: Love wills the neighbor’s good when we like him or not

Agápē is in the business of loving the unlovable. So related to our enemies. Love does not ask us to lose or abandon our sense of good and evil, or even of superior and inferior; it simply insists that however we rate them, and whether we like them nor not, they are our neighbors and are to be loved.

5: Only the ends justify the means, nothing else

Any action we take, if considered as an action independent of its consequences, is literally “meaningless and pointless”. An action, such as telling the truth, only acquires its status as a means by virtue of an end beyond itself.

6: Love’s decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively

Ethical decisions exist in a grey area most of the time. No decision can be taken before considering the situation. Consider the example of a woman in Arizona who learned that she might “bear a defective baby because she had taken thalidomide”. What should she do? The loving decision was not one given by the law, which stated that all abortions are wrong. However, she travelled to Sweden where she had an abortion. Even if the embryo had not been defective according to Fletcher her actions were “brave and responsible and right” because she was acting in light of the particulars of the situation to bring about the most love.

The Criticism of Situational Ethics

John Robinson, an Anglican Bishop of Woolwich and Trinity College started as a firm supporter of situational ethics referring to the responsibility it gave the individual in deciding the morality of their actions. However, he later withdrew his support for the theory recognizing that people could not take this sort of responsibility, remarking that “It will all descend into moral chaos.”

The central focus on agape as the moral guide for behavior allows to claim that an action might be right in one context, but wrong in a different context — depending on the level of agape brought about. Despite how popular the theory was it is not philosophically sophisticated, and we soon run into problems in trying to understand it.

Another problem with teleological or consequential theories is that they are based on the future consequences, and the future is quite hard to predict in some cases. For example, it may be easy to predict that if we harm someone, then it will make them and those around them sad and/or angry. However, when considering more tricky situations such as an abortion, it is impossible to tell how the child’s life and its mother’s will turn out either way.

Specifically Christian forms of situational ethics of placing love above all particular principles or rules were proposed in the first half of the twentieth century by liberal theologians Rudolf Bultmann, John A. T. Robinson, along with Joseph Fletcher. These theologians point specifically to agape, or unconditional love, as the highest end. Other theologians who advocated situational ethics include Josef Fuchs, Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Paul Tillich.  Tillich, for example, declared, “Love is the ultimate law.”

Content Curated by: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

EXPLORING SITUATIONAL ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS: THE SENSITIVITIES OF MORAL COMPASS – CHAPTER -01

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. The theory was principally developed in the 1960s by the Christian Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher. He argued that sometimes moral principles could be cast aside in certain situations if love is best being served. He believed that there are no absolute laws other than the law of love, and that all the other laws were secondary. This means that all the other laws 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.

Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), in his time, developed what he called an ethical non-system. His publication was questioned amongst the public because it legitimized the general post-war dissatisfaction with authority. The English term “situation ethics” was taken from the German Situationsethik. It is unclear who first coined the term either in German or in its English variant.

At the time it was written, it seemed to make some radical claims such as that it is not wrong to have extramarital sex, to be homosexual, or to have an abortion. All that said, Fletcher’s work is not widely discussed nor respected in philosophical circles. Fletcher called this ethical “non-system” Situationism.  

A few instances from the epic- The Ramayana- illustrate this. The Bible also has a few illustrations.

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’. Through situational ethics, Fletcher attempted to find a ‘middle road’ between legalistic and antinomian ethics.

The Meaning & Context of Agape

Our world has many definitions of love, but we most commonly think about love in a romantic sense. What if true love meant more than romance? What if there was a deeper, fuller expression of love?

The concept of agape has been widely examined within its Christian context. It has also been considered in the contexts of other religions, religious ethics, and science. For instance, in the New Testament, agape refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one’s fellow human beings. Some contemporary writers have sought to extend the use of agape into non-religious contexts.

The Three Views Of Situational Ethics

Situational ethics relies on one principle—what best serves love. According to Fletcher, love is unconditional and unsentimental. Situational ethics is based on the golden rule “love your neighbor as yourself” and altruism, which is putting others before yourself and showing agape (a greek interpretation of love – discussed shortly) towards everyone. It agrees on reason being the instrument of moral judgments, but disagrees that the good is to be disconcerted from the nature of things. All moral decisions depend on what the most loving thing to do is.

Fletcher says there are two unattractive views in ethics: “Legalism” and “Antinomianism”, and one attractive view, which sits in between them: “Situationism”.

Legalism: Someone who is following the system of Legalism is someone who “blindly” observes moral rules without being sensitive to the situation. For example, we ought to tell the truth in all situations, even if this means that, say, millions of people die. In 2002 the religious police of Saudi Arabia refused to let a group of girls escape from a burning building because they were wearing “inappropriate” clothing, which was against the will of God. Fifteen girls died.

Reference:

‘Saudi Police “Stopped” Fire Rescue’, BBC News (15 March 2002), freely available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

Antinomianism: The other extreme is Antinomianism (“anti” meaning against; “nominalism” meaning law). This is the view that says that an agent can do whatever he or she wants in a situation. An “existential” view – because it is one that says that people are always free to choose what they want. Any supposed laws and rules limiting the actions of people are simply a way of trying to comfort them because they are scared of absolute freedom.

Antinomianism means the moral agent is erratic and random, is unpredictable, and any decisions taken are ad hoc. There are no laws nor guiding principles, just agents and their conscience and the institutions in which they find themselves.

Situationism: The Middle Ethics. We might think that Legalism and Antinomianism exhaust the possibilities. If we reject moral laws then are not we forced into lawless moral anarchy?

Fletcher says that there is a moral law, and hence he rejects Antinomianism. But there is only one moral law, so he rejects Legalism. His one moral law is that we ought to always act so as to bring about the most love for the most people (“Agápē Calculus”). Fletcher’s Situationism is then a teleological theory- directed at the consequences that will determine whether an action is right or wrong. Of course, any teleological theory will ask us to look at the details of the situation. What makes his view different is the centrality of “love”, or as he calls it agápē.

There can be moral principles but that these differ from laws. Principles are generalizations which are context-sensitive and which derive from the one law regarding maximizing love. For example, we might have a moral principle that we ought not to murder. This is a principle because we might think in that in general murder is wrong because it does not bring about the most love. However, it is not a law because, murder is not wrong in all situations.

For example, a situation might arise where the child of a terrorist would have to be murdered in order to get information to stop a nuclear attack. From the universal law we can only derive principles, not other universal laws.

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Four Working Principles of Situationism, Conscience as a Verb not a Noun, Six Propositions of Situation Ethics, The Criticism of Situational Ethics, How it falls short)

EXPLORING SITUATIONAL ETHICS AND BEHAVIOR DYNAMICS: THE SENSITIVITIES OF MORAL COMPASS – CHAPTER -02

Content Curated by: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

MORAL DILEMMAS: INTERTWINED BEHAVIOURS & WAYS TO NAVIGATE – CHAPTER – 02

***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Meaning of Ethics/ Morals, Traditional Interpretations Of Ethics, Three Broad Types of Ethical Theory, Interpretation of Moral/ Ethical Dilemmas)

Link to Chapter 01:

MORAL DILEMMAS: INTERTWINED BEHAVIOURS & WAYS TO NAVIGATE – CHAPTER – 01

Moral Dilemma Questions

In a time when many question our national moral character, pondering what to do in various situations can be a positive exercise preparing an individual for worst-&-best-case. We will look at some examples of moral dilemma questions to aid in placing ourselves in the midst of them.

01. The Unfaithful Friend

You go out with your spouse for dinner at a new restaurant you have not frequented before. It is in a part of town you rarely visit. You are shocked to see your friend’s spouse having dinner with a very young, attractive person. From the way they are behaving, it is obvious they are more than friends. The couple finish their meal and leave without seeing you. They behave very affectionately on the way out the door.

02. An Office Theft
You are in charge of the petty cash at the office. However, a co-worker is responsible for making a weekly trip to the bank to make the business deposit and obtain petty cash for the following week. In a conversation with your mutual supervisor, you are asked if the increase in the petty cash amount was enough. You, however, have not seen any additional money. You realize your co-worker has been pocketing the additional money.

03. Midnight Death

You have worked years to be successful in your father’s business. You felt you were obligated to take over as he worked his whole life to build the business left to him by his father. However, the large businesses in town have seriously cut into profits and for several years you and your family have just managed to scrape by. Your father’s health has declined and he has been hospitalized. He has a substantial life insurance policy that expires at midnight. If he dies before midnight, you will inherit enough money to pursue a career you have always dreamed of and provide adequately for your family.

04. Get Rich

Your friend offers you an opportunity to make a great deal of money very quickly. He has arranged to set up an off-shore account for your profits. He will not tell you exactly how he is making this money, but you get the impression it is not exactly legal. He only wants an investment of Rs 50,000/- and promises you will have enough from your minimal investment that you will never need to work again.

05. Telling a Secret

Your friend tells you that they committed a crime. They explain that they are having trouble sleeping at night and feel you are the only one they can trust with their confession. A few days later, you read in the paper that someone has been arrested for your friend’s crime.

Moral Dilemma Scenarios

Here are some moral dilemma scenarios. Each scene is characterized by the need to make a difficult decision. As with all moral dilemmas, there is no right or wrong.

01. Sarcastic Friend
Your friend has a great sense of humour. However, sometimes his jokes involve making fun of others in inappropriate ways. He will point out a physical flaw or look for something odd or different about a person and make an unkind comment. You feel uncomfortable when your friend does this. Do you say something or just laugh along with him?

02. Hit and Run
Late one night you are driving home in a bad rainstorm. A drunk reels out in front of your car and you try to stop, but hit him. Nobody sees you. The guy looks and smells as if he is homeless. You check to see how badly he is hurt and realize he is dead. You have never even had a speeding ticket and are an upright, professional, with a family and are well-known and respected in your community. Do you make a report anonymously, confess your crime, or drive on home and forget about it, knowing no one is going to pursue the death of a homeless drunk?

03. Third Chance
Your teenager has had a rough few years. First came an arrest for shoplifting. The item was of little value, so it was only a misdemeanour. Then your teen was with some friends who were smoking pot and driving too fast. Your teen has promised they are turning over a new leaf and seem to be on the right track, doing better in school, coming home by curfew, and generally having a much better attitude. Now you get a call from the local police station saying your son was with a group of kids who broke into a liquor store and stole beer. Do you go to the station and see how you can get your teen out of this jam or let him accept whatever consequences befall him?

04. Reward a Job Well Done
You understand the importance of team work in your job. You share ideas and responsibilities with your team members on a daily basis. In your weekly team meeting with your supervisor, one of your co-workers takes credit for a time and money saving change in operating procedures you devised. Your supervisor erroneously thinks your co-worker came up with the change and your co-worker does not correct the misinterpretation, but allows the boss to not only commend him, but offer a bonus. Do you go to your co-worker and demand he correct the situation, go to your supervisor and explain you should receive the commendation and reward, or keep quiet as you do not believe in ownership of ideas?

Moral Dilemma Questions

Moral dilemma questions might be characterized as “What if?” questions. It can be hard to take a close look at ourselves and ask, “Will I do the right thing when confronted with a difficult choice?” Frequently, it is the small decisions we make that truly define our moral character.

Approaches For Ethical Decision-Making

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. There are three broad frameworks to guide ethical decision making:

While each of the three frameworks is useful for making ethical decisions, none is perfect—otherwise the perfect theory would have driven the other imperfect theories from the field long ago. Knowing the advantages and disadvantages of the frameworks will be helpful in deciding which is most useful in approach the particular situation with which we are presented.

In many situations, all three frameworks will result in the same—or at least very similar—conclusions about what to do, although they will typically give different reasons for reaching those conclusions. However, because they focus on different ethical features, the conclusions reached through one framework will occasionally differ from the conclusions reached through one (or both) of the others.

The Importance of Studying Moral/ Ethical Dilemmas

The exploration needs to dig deeper, taking into consideration not only how to make difficult decisions, but how the decisions reflect the underlying values that are important to us. The practice will not only foster better ethical decision-making, but exercises that require assessments of ethical dilemmas can improve reasoning and critical thinking skills—valuable assets in many contexts.

Ethical training develops important “soft skills” like respect, empathy and compassion. Exploring conflicts from different points of view—and striving to understand the value behind an opinion—also makes us more empathetic to others. Identifying the principles that comprise the foundation of our beliefs as well as those that guide others allows us to hone social and emotional competencies like self-awareness and social awareness.

A Framework for Making Moral/ Ethical Decisions

Decisions about right and wrong permeate everyday life. Ethics should concern all levels of life: acting properly as individuals, creating responsible organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical. One Framework that can be applied in daily instances may be:

Making moral/ ethical decisions requires sensitivity to the ethical implications of problems and situations.  It also requires practice. Having a framework for ethical decision making is essential for individuals and organizations.

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa

MORAL DILEMMAS: INTERTWINED BEHAVIOURS & WAYS TO NAVIGATE – CHAPTER – 01

Morality is defined as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour (Oxford Dictionary). Effective ethics instruction is about more than distributing a list of moral guidelines; it requires educating learners on how to navigate their own moral decision-making. Learners learn to search for and evaluate their assumptions, to excavate the reasons behind those assumptions, to examine without prejudice another’s opinion and to make a thoughtful decision with confidence.

What Is Ethics:

Ethics provides a set of standards for behaviour that helps us decide how we ought to act in a range of situations. In a sense, ethics is all about making choices, and about providing reasons why we should make these choices.

Ethics is sometimes conflated or confused with other ways of making choices, including religion, law or morality. Many religions promote ethical decision-making but do not always address the full range of ethical choices that we face. Religions may also advocate or prohibit certain behaviours which may not be considered the proper domain of ethics. Many people use the terms morality and ethics interchangeably. Others reserve morality for the state of virtue while seeing ethics as a code that enables morality. Another way to think about the relationship between ethics and morality is to see ethics as providing a rational basis for morality, that is, ethics provides good reasons for why something is moral.

Traditional Interpretations Of Ethics:

There are numerous ways to think about right and wrong actions or good and bad character.  The field of ethics is traditionally divided into three areas:

Three Broad Types of Ethical Theory:

Ethical theories are often broadly divided into three types. Each of these three broad categories contains varieties of approaches to ethics, some of which share characteristics across the categories.

Consequentialist Theories

The Utilitarian Approach: Utilitarianism is one of the most common approaches to making ethical decisions, especially decisions with consequences that concern large groups of people, in part because it instructs us to weigh the different amounts of good and bad that will be produced by our action. This conforms to our feeling that some good and some bad will necessarily be the result of our action and that the best action will be that which provides the most good or does the least harm, or produces the greatest balance of good over harm.

The Egoistic Approach: One variation of the utilitarian approach is known as ethical egoism, or the ethics of self- interest. In this approach, an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself. The Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982), who, in the book The Virtue of Selfishness (1964), argues that self-interest is a prerequisite to self-respect and to respect for others.

The Common Good Approach: The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) argued that the best society should be guided by the general will of the people which would then produce what is best for the people as a whole. This approach to ethics underscores the networked aspects of society and emphasizes respect and compassion for others, especially those who are more vulnerable.

Non Consequentialist Theories

The Duty-Based Approach: The ethical action is one taken from duty, that is, it is done precisely because it is our obligation to perform the action. Ethical obligations are the same for all rational creatures (they are universal), and knowledge of what these obligations entail is arrived at by discovering rules of behaviour that are not contradicted by reason.

The Rights Approach: This approach stipulates that the best ethical action is that which protects the ethical rights of those who are affected by the action. It emphasizes the belief that all humans have a right to dignity. The list of ethical rights is debated; many now argue that animals and other non-humans such as robots also have rights.

The Fairness or Justice Approach: The American philosopher John Rawls argued that just ethical principles are those that would be chosen by free and rational people in an initial situation of equality. This is considered fair or just because it provides a procedure for what counts as a fair action, and does not concern itself with the consequences of those actions. Fairness of starting point is the principle for what is considered just.

The Divine Command Approach: As its name suggests, this approach sees what is right as the same as what the Devine Beings command, and ethical standards are the creation of their will. Because Devine Beings are seen as omnipotent and possessed of free will, they could change what is now considered ethical, and they are not bound by any standard of right or wrong short of logical contradiction.

Agent Centred Theories

The Virtue Approach: One long-standing ethical principle argues that ethical actions should be consistent with ideal human virtues. Because virtue ethics is concerned with the entirety of a person’s life, it takes the process of education and training seriously, and emphasizes the importance of role models to our understanding of how to engage in ethical deliberation.

The Feminist Approach: This approach emphasizes the importance of the experiences of women and other marginalized groups to ethical deliberation. The principle of care as a legitimately primary ethical concern, often in opposition to the seemingly cold and impersonal justice approach. Like virtue ethics, feminist ethics concerned with the totality of human life and how this life comes to influence the way we make ethical decisions.

Interpretation of Moral/ Ethical Dilemmas

In philosophy, ethical dilemmas, also called ethical paradoxes or moral dilemmas, are situations in which an agent stands under two (or more) conflicting moral requirements, none of which overrides the other. A closely related definition characterizes ethical dilemmas as situations in which every available choice is wrong. The term is also used in a wider sense in everyday language to refer to ethical conflicts that may be resolvable, to psychologically difficult choices or to other types of difficult ethical problems.

The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. What is common to the cases in a moral dilemma (or ethical dilemma) is conflict. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what he/she does, he/she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that he/she ought to do).

When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we have a conflict but not a genuine moral dilemma. So, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden. What makes these questions dilemmas is an individual’s definition of right and wrong or good and bad. scenarios. Some ways in which such ethical dilemmas may be addressed are:

***To be continued in Chapter 02 (Moral Dilemma Questions & Common Situations, Approaches For Ethical Decision-Making, Importance of Understanding Moral Dilemmas, Framework for Making Moral/ Ethical Decisions)

Content Curated By: Dr Shoury Kuttappa