You have no items in your shopping cart.
ABSTRACT
This study critically analyzed Joseph Fletcher’s situation ethics, with a view of recommending his theory of ethics as a panacea for contemporary society. Prior to Fletcher’s writing on morality, several theories of morality were held among moral thinkers. Two out of these notable theories of morality were the categorical imperative based on an established law and that of the moral relativism, where actions are classified to be morally right or wrong based on its cultural differences. Fletcher observed that these two major theories of morality do not have the right answer to the problem of morality when one is confronted with moral dilemmas. Hence, Fletcher proposes for a new moral theory. According to him, all actions are not bad, but that an action is to be said to be right or wrong depending on the situation one finds he or herself when choosing his or her course of action. Fletcher, in his analysis, argues that certain moral actions like the case of abortion, euthanasia killing and telling lies are sometimes approved, especially, when faced with difficult situations. Are human actions right or wrong in themselves? Is an action good or bad based on its categorical imperative, relativism or situationism? How do we apply morality to contemporary issues such as the morality of abortion, euthanasia and surrogacy? Situation ethics plausibly has the proper panacea to these questions. 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. Therefore, the study recommends Fletcher’s situation ethics for the good of the contemporary society.
