Fletcher's Three Approaches to Ethics

Fletcher identified three ways people make moral decisions, and he wasn't impressed with two of them. Legalism relies on strict religious rules like Divine Command Theory, but Fletcher thought this was too rigid and didn't help with modern situations.

Antinomianism goes to the opposite extreme - it's basically winging it with no principles at all. Fletcher called this "unprincipled" because you can't explain why you're doing something.

His preferred middle ground is Situation Ethics - a relativist, consequentialist approach that bases decisions on agape (Christian love) as shown in Jesus' teachings. St Paul's idea that "love endures all things" captures this perfectly.

Quick Tip: Remember the three approaches as Too Strict (Legalism), Too Loose (Antinomianism), and Just Right (Situation Ethics) - like a moral Goldilocks story!

Fletcher's Four Working Principles and Six Propositions

Fletcher built his theory around four key principles that work together. Personalism recognises that God is personal, so we should love both Him and each other. Positivism makes love a priority through value judgements, whilst Relativism means decisions depend on the situation. Pragmatism focuses on practical outcomes that actually work.

The six propositions dig deeper into what love means. Love is the only thing that's good in itself (intrinsic good), and it can't be separated from justice. True agape is unconditional - you don't expect anything back.

Most importantly, love is the only ruling norm in Christianity, which is why Jesus could break Sabbath rules to heal someone. Love is always situational rather than following a script, and loving ends can justify the means if you consider the results.

Remember: Agape isn't just any love - it's selfless, unconditional love given to everyone, not romantic or friendship love.

Applying Situation Ethics to Relationships

Fletcher believed governments should stay out of people's private relationships unless there are serious issues like age of consent, public decency, or sexual violence. He saw most relationship matters as "private choice and personal taste" that should be judged case-by-case.

For homosexuality, Fletcher would note that Jesus never actually spoke about same-sex relationships. Since it became legal in the UK in 1957 and gay marriage was legalised in 2014, his principles of pragmatism and personalism would support loving relationships regardless of gender.

Polygamy (relationships with more than two people) gets trickier because Jesus did speak about infidelity. However, Fletcher's focus on situational love and practical outcomes means each case would need individual consideration.

Exam Tip: When applying Situation Ethics, always ask "What would love do in this specific situation?" rather than "What do the rules say?"

Bentham's Act Utilitarianism

Bentham created a revolutionary approach to ethics during the Enlightenment era. His theory is teleological, consequentialist, and relativist - meaning it's all about the outcomes. Influenced by ancient Greek hedonism, Bentham believed we're controlled by two "sovereign masters": pain and pleasure.

The principle of utility is beautifully simple: do whatever creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham famously said all happiness is equal - whether you get pleasure from gin or opera doesn't matter.

His hedonic calculus tries to mathematically work out which action will create the most happiness. The seven features (Purity, Richness, Remoteness, Intensity, Certainty, Extent, Duration) help calculate the best choice. For example, in a car crash, you'd save a pregnant woman over an old man because her survival is more certain and the child's happiness will last longer.

Memory Trick: Remember PRICED with an extra R - the seven features of hedonic calculus help you work out the "price" of happiness!

Mill's Rule Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill was Bentham's godchild but thought his godfather got some things wrong. Mill rejected the idea that happiness could be simply quantified and worried about the "tyranny of the majority" crushing minority rights.

However, Mill loved the teleological approach and principle of utility. His big innovation was distinguishing between higher pleasures (intellectual development like scientific discovery) and lower pleasures (bodily pleasures like food and sex). His famous quote captures this: "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

Mill's harm principle gives you freedom to do whatever you want as a consenting adult, as long as you don't harm others. He also developed rule utilitarianism - the idea that society can create beneficial rules like "don't steal" that generally promote happiness. This creates a hybrid of teleological and deontological ethics.

Key Insight: Mill's approach protects minorities and individual rights better than Bentham's pure numbers game - quality of happiness matters, not just quantity.

Applying Utilitarianism to Modern Dilemmas

Medical animal testing creates a fascinating utilitarian dilemma. Act utilitarians might support it because lifesaving medications like insulin help millions of people - the extent of happiness is massive compared to harm to some animals. The hedonic calculus shows high certainty that medications help and 89.3% of experiments cause minimal animal harm.

However, Bentham himself asked whether animals can suffer, not just think. There's no certainty that rat-tested medications will work on humans, and long-term studies cause prolonged animal suffering.

Nuclear weapons as deterrents present another complex case. Act utilitarians might argue they create happiness through safety and prevent wars, with high purity since no physical pain is directly caused. Rule utilitarians could support them if society democratically decides they're beneficial and they don't harm people under the harm principle.

Critics argue nuclear deterrents create fear rather than happiness, waste money that could go to healthcare, and risk catastrophic accidents with massive suffering potential.

Critical Thinking: Both issues show how utilitarian calculations can support opposite conclusions depending on which factors you prioritise - there's rarely one "correct" utilitarian answer.