 Hello everyone, today we will talk about situation ethics. Now, as you see in the slide, it is subscripted as love is the way. Well, situation ethics is a kind of ethical theory, if it may so be called, that tries to understand or to put forth the moral domain in terms of the situation and the perspective of the agent. Now, what is situation ethics? Let us take a look. Now, frequently you must have come across or you might yourself have come with alibi, that well, every situation is so unique, it is different. How can there be one general moral theory, which talks about right and wrong or about any value judgment cutting across situations. So, we come across this through in various domains, when we talk about situations, when we talk about real life decisions being taken, that well, that was the situation, this is the knowledge that I had about it and I had to take a decision at the moment and this is what I found fit to be done at the moment. Now, there is a domain of moral theory called situation ethics, which was brought about by a Christian philosopher called, Fletcher. Now, Fletcher put forth this as a moral theory and it has been present in various traditions already. Let us look at a slide to understand what about situation ethics. Now, as it says, situation ethics was pioneered by Joseph Fletcher. It says that there are neither rules nor laws nor rigid theories that can form the basis of the ethical domain. It is only love and acts emerging from the spirit of love that lay the foundation of ethics. Now, when we talk of the word love, what do we understand by it? Now, that is well understood as in the Christian tradition mentioned as a gap or selfless love or a love that does not have any no desire for consequences, no desire for consequences or reciprocation. It is almost to be understood as that love of the saint towards the suffering without any expectation of a personal enrichment or any personal gains at all. Now, when I say that well there are neither rules nor neither rules nor laws nor rigid theories that can form the basis of the ethical domain. It is only love and acts emerging from the spirit of love that lay the foundation of ethics. Now, let us try to conceive that well is this what kind of a theory is it? Now, this is very different from the various theories that we have talked about earlier. We find here a mention of the term love and love being the centre of ethics. How significant would that be? Well, let us think about it. Now, when the modern day propounder of situation ethics Fletcher is proposing love as the thrust for making decisions, he is referring to that love which is called in the Christian tradition and which is referred as a gap which is means a non reciprocal compassionate love. Now, when we can find this very familiar with the decisions that people take around us that well they say that this was the right thing to do, these were the situations and in which this was the right thing to do. So, they had and went ahead and did that did exactly that. Now, is this a little uncomfortable to our moral sense love as the thrust of moral theory? Well, let us go ahead and see more of it to make sense of this. Now, coming to the next slide why situation ethics? Well, the term was coined in the Christian tradition, but can be applicable to many traditions. This was just over a century back. So, this is a coined in the Christian tradition, but situation ethics in its ethos or in its as a concept has existed in various traditions and is also present in current day functioning. Now, ethical theories are rigid and often present counter intuitive output laws are clearly blind to the situation. Now, perhaps a vital component of ethical domain is neutralized out by the ethical theories. The two important points to be remembered is that the uniqueness of the situation and the perspective of the agent. These are the two features that perhaps may have been underestimated or left out by earlier ethical theories. Now, let us take a look that well, we have been talking about certain ethical theories. Now, let us say the Kantian theory or the Utilitarian theory or the hedonistic theory. How is it that we take a moral decision? How is it that we take a value decision? When confronted with a value dilemma, do we think well, this is going to be I am a Kantian. So, I would like to say that well, if this can be universalizable, then I should do it. Perhaps many of us do not do that. Perhaps many of us are not so law bound, not so rigidly adhere to rules and laws or principles and theories. Yet, we take decisions. How do we take decisions? Now, perhaps decision making takes place by considering well, what would be the most suitable thing to do? What is the right thing to do, which emerges out of love? Now, let us take an example to make this simpler. Let us say the actions of a saint, a saint's compassion for the suffering. Now, that saint's compassion for the suffering is an example of a gay love and whatever value decisions he takes around, she or he takes around to get rid of those sufferings are mostly powered or mostly clarified by the compassion that the saint has towards the suffering. A clear case and example would be Mother Teresa. Now, I am sure she has had to take a lot of decisions in her life and as we know, she was a compassionate person and well, many people have cited her as an example of situation ethics that where the kind of a gay love that situation ethicists talk about is exemplified in saints, where the decision is taken out by which is the most loving thing to do or which would bring about the most loving parameters around. So, it is like when we are functioning for something, any time to take a moral decision, what would bring out most love in this environment? Now, thinking of this, it is not perhaps not so easy to realize that well, how do we decide what brings about the best love in the circumstances? Well, let us slowly and steadily thread bear analyze what could actually mean by situation ethics. So, well, first we see that as it is mentioned on the slide that ethical theories are rigid and often present counterintuitive output. Many times, ethical theories when stuck to produce counterintuitive output. So, it is like there are a lot of thought experiments, a lot of examples given where may be making say in the case of an organ donation coming out for utilitarian theory, it might be wise, but when push the theory still becomes obscene or counterintuitive when, let us take two examples of organ donation in case we have gotten over the organ donation example discussed long back. Now, suppose there is a patient and we would like to see that there are six patients in a hospital and one patient is terminally ill and is perhaps not is in a coma and but if organs from him are harvested, the other five patients can get back their normal lives. So, in certain versions of utilitarian perspective, we could say that well, now this this person patient who is in coma may be allowed to be euthanized. So, that we have organs for the other people. Now, stretch it forward. Now, what if this one person is a healthy person? Is the healthy person's life worth very little when it can bring about happiness to five more or say 50 more people? Now, these are some places where we see sticking to one kind of theory produces some counterintuitive results. Now, looking at the slide, we can see that what is clearly wrong with such a situation? Well, first why is that these laws or these theories are clearly blind to the situation? They are indifferent or unaware of the situation. Now, more secondly, they lack the perspective of the agent. Now, perhaps a vital component of ethical domain is neutralized out by ethical theory. So, the uniqueness of the situation, every situation is unique. Now, every situation has its own particulars, it has its own details, it has its own intricacies. Now, how can one be indifferent to these intricacies? Now, situation ethics takes this step to weigh in to measure, to factor in these intricacies. So, when I say factoring in intricacies or uniqueness of the situations is what I mean by uniqueness of the situation. And secondly, the perspective of the agent, the agent has a perspective. Now, what does an ethical theory try to do? A regular ethical theory that we have talked about tries to neutralize or get rid of the perspective of the agent. In fact, it goes ahead and sees the perspective of the agent as a diluter to value thinking or weighing the scales unfavorably towards injustice or making it unfair, because the perspective of the agent. Well, but being indifferent to the perspective of the agent, is that the situation? Well, the situation ethicists think no, that is not the resolution of the problem. We have to factor in the uniqueness of the situation and the perspective of the agent. Now, these two parameters along with the spirit of love lay the situation ethics view of the ethical domain. Now, it is not the laws that are applied, but the spirit in which a value decision is made is that matters. When confronted with a value dilemma, the agent assesses the situation, its particularities and a resolution is arrived which seems the most compassionate or which brings out the most of love. Now, let me give an example. Let me bring forth that how we find situation ethics in the genesis of situation ethics. Now, situation ethics is not so hell bent on atomizing the uniqueness of the situation as it is also bringing forth the ethos of moral judgments which is love or the agape form of love. Now, in the Christian tradition, there are certain commandments that are to be followed. Now, are these commandments to be followed at all costs? Are these commandments to be followed when they are counterintuitive? Say, if there is a commandment like one should not lie. Now, if does one not lie to prevent murderer searching his victim or does one not lie to criminal searching his victim? Now, these are cases where clearly sticking to laws has its problems. So, this was the time that precipitated the propounder of situation ethics as the theory in the modern tradition, Joseph Fletcher to postulate something called situation ethics where this blind obedience to laws in different and irrespective of the circumstances or the perspective of the agent or the spirit of action is no more to be followed. Now, these three entities, the perspective of the agent, the details of the situation and the spirit of the action, these three according to Fletcher or according to largely according to situation ethics tradition and concept we find are very particular to moral judgments and have perhaps been given lesser importance in standard moral theories. Now, coming to the next slide, our situation ethicists relativists. Before we talk about this question that whether situation ethicists are relativists, I would like to bring forth this example that since we have talked about the Christian tradition. Let me also recuperate that acting out of love is not exclusive to any particular religious tradition. In fact, many religious traditions including Hinduism and Islam have propounded that well decisions are right when they are taken in the right spirit, the spirit of love or the spirit of welfare. Now, having a spirit or an ethos of decision making is different from having a algorithm or guidelines of decision making. The ethos of spirit making finds its application to a moral question via the agent. Now, if there is spirit of love or justice, how it is applied to a situation depends on the agent, but if there are few guidelines to be followed, it reduces the role that the agent plays and in certain contexts it in that way makes it more fair, but in certain contexts also makes the entire procedure blind and immune to the intricacies of the situation that only the agent can perceive. So, we still cannot have a set of guidelines, laws to say the least or even principles and theories that can blindly given an input of a situation deliver a intuitive value judgment or deliver a value judgment that we would find intuitive. Now, this is the gap that situation ethics tries to fulfill and by giving by trusting the agent that the agent would act in the spirit of making the moral judgment and not intentionally or willfully ambiguity agent. The Indian example of Vasudeva Kutumbakam where one understands that well the entire world is one family and entire one is or ought to be concerned or love the entire family and therefore, one's decisions taken are towards an entire family. So, towards the world as an entire family. So, there of moral judgment can only be determined can be taken when it is taken from this spirit. So, now coming back to the claim that our situation ethicists relativists. Well, before we read the slide let me say why do we think or why could situation ethicists be relativists. Now, one could argue that well a situation ethicist leaves the judgment the application or the judgment of the situation dependent on the individual. Now, the individual functioning out of an ethos or spirit of love takes a decision. So, perhaps different people could take different decisions in identical situations because that would be their application of love that would be their application of the spirit of taking a judgment. So, it is quite sensible that well what matters when we say that well a particular person is heading an organization. Now, if an organization or if a let us talk of a court of justice. Now, if the court of justice depends on takes its decisions by following the laws laid out in the constitution it should be immaterial that what judge or who is the judge sitting on the bench. Now, as the judgment taken should be irrespective of the justice sitting of the judge sitting on the bench, but we find that it is probably never. So, we find that it is always a judge decision is overturned by another judge what one judge finds concrete evidence another may not find it as concrete as the former. So, we see that the individual is perhaps a hindrance is a road block a speed breaker for the application of fair universal rules on a situation and not facilitator. Well this is an perspective or an attitude that would perhaps make us conclude that well situation a thesis are really relative is because they are giving this human element too much of discretionary power and thereof making well every judgment justified by the individual who is making the decision because what is the spirit one functions of and given the situations the individual takes a decision. So, different individuals can take different decisions in identical situation. So, therefore, there can be no single way of working well the situation a thesis answer is as we see on the slide no it is not. So, it might appear that each agent is entitled to arrive at his or her own decision there by there being no absolute decision it is all perspective. This is the eternal claim of relative is that well it is all perspective and therefore, there is no absolute decision now this is incorrect according to situation a thesis love is the single guiding principle and if not intentionally ambiguity in application there would be no variation in decisions in identical situations. As Fletcher himself puts it love relativizes the absolute it does not absolutize the relative. Now let us take a look if we find that well the individual what are the charges of relativism again situation ethics well the charges are that well you situation a thesis I see that you are taking a decision according to whatever spirit you are functioning the says the spirit of love and you are taking a decision x in a situation y. Now another person in a situation y in a situation x will be a taking another decision not y because his interpretation is different. Now thereof we find the different decisions being taken and there being no uniform pattern around it. Now situation a thesis would counter argue that well if one does not willfully ambiguity or intentionally misinterpret. Now these are two important terms that we need to take cognizance of willfully ambiguity or intentionally misinterpret then if one does not willfully ambiguity or intentionally misinterpret the situation then we would functioning from the same spirit have or the same it functioning from the same ethos have identical judgments in identical situations would that be that not be in absolutist claim the situation a thesis are very clear that we are not talking about relativism at all we are talking that well love is the single most absolute ethos and factor that is absolute in our moral theory and that love as is said relativizes the absolute but does not absolutize the relative. So it is the spirit of love which is tempered or which is adjusted or which is seen through the glass of love or seen through the spirit of love is seen through the glasses or the tint of the circumstance to arrive at the judgment but this vision of love remains the same. So it is the vision of the love which passes through the glass or the tint of the situation and the perspective to arrive at a decision note that the vision remains the same no matter how the glass keeps on changing and the glass keeps on changing or the tint keeps on changing because situations are different. If situations were the same then the agent should be able to show the same judgment. Now if situation a thesis were relativist then well even the ethos there should be a variation in the ethos of judgments. Now we see that situation a thesis say that well as we have seen the slide that love relativizes the absolute it does not absolutize the relative. So the Fletcher's claim is that well it is love that is relativizing the absolute moral judgments but it is not making morality relative as such. Now let us see what are the other questions that come along with situation ethicists. Does situation ethics collapse into utilitarianism? Now is being driven by love or a gap end up in the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number. The most loving action is often understood as that which will produce the greatest good of the greatest number. This may be the case often but is not structurally necessary. Does situation ethics collapse into utilitarianism? Now is being driven by love end up in the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number. The most loving action is often understood as that which will produce the greatest good of the greatest number. This may be the case often but is not structurally necessary. Now let us look at the problem. The problem is that whether situation ethics becomes utilitarianism. Is it the same thing as utilitarianism? Because as we have been talking for the past some time we might have an impression that well situation ethics is also targeting is functioning out of the spirit of love and is also talking about there being bringing about the greatest good of the greatest number or bringing about goodness. Now let us see. Let us say you are a teacher or a parent and you would like to you have a board or a student or a child. Now how would you like to see the good of this student? A teacher or a parent can very often show anger and to discipline the student without actually feeling anger or feeling hatred or angst against the child or the student. But the purpose of the exhibition of anger or strictness is to discipline the young child who would not perhaps listen to reason as much as he would or she would listen to fear and this is out of a love for the child to prosper and for the child to learn the right ways for him to gain happiness. Now this kind of an act where the child or the parent is exhibiting anger or exhibiting strictness turns out to be difficult, turns out to be almost a violation of situation ethics perhaps no. But does it become utilitarian because it is actions done for the greatest good of the individual right or if a teacher is strict in the class with the view that well this is a class of young children who would perhaps listen better to little bit of disciplining rather than reason well let it be so. So we have possibilities of confusing utilitarianism with situation ethics and very often we would see that well situation ethics is talking of the same thing what utilitarians talk about but it is not necessarily so, it is not structurally so. There can be cases where the utilitarian claim is very different from what is the claim of the situation ethicist, the ethicist who is driven by love conditioned by the circumstances and uniqueness of the situation. Now the utilitarians are only emphasizing on what brings about the greatest good of the greatest number that can be a limitation, that can be indifferent or that can be independent of what is the most loving thing to do or what is the absolute love quotient to happen. Now so as we see in the slide the conclusion about utilitarians is that well we see that this may be the case often but is not structurally necessary. So structurally there is no necessity for situation ethics to collapse into utilitarianism now. So let us now see what are the advantages or what is the recompense of situation ethics? Well it presumes the best in humans, everyone functioning out of love. Now when we talk about presuming the best about human beings it is about making a claim that well the situation ethicist beats the relativist by saying that well if all people are driven out of this ethos of love or spirit of agape will actually make the world a better place. So it is more forward looking, it is assuming a hypothetical or it is hoping for a situation where everybody functions out of love. Thus may not be the real situation now or currently or at any time but this assumes that this is a possibility. Now it shows a midway between rigid rules and theories and what may be called an anarchy of relativism. Now let us take a look, we have two sides of in our value domain we find at one side rigid strict rules theories. On the other side the anarchy of relativism where everything goes there is no objective way of judging what is better from another. Now from these two extremes the situation ethics actually gives a midway a way in which it is not having the anarchy of relativism yet it is also not having the rigidity of moral theories and principles. Now in conjunction with this point and the third point mentioned here the importance to the perspective of the agent and the details of the situation is given. The perspective of the agent which has been tried to be neutralized by many moral theories and which has been atomized or and given most importance in perhaps relativism is also again brought into the midway. So the perspective of the agent and the details of the situation have again been given most importance in relativism and released importance in moral theories and principles. Now in situation ethics as a moral theory it tries to bring a midway between giving it not as much importance as that the relativist would give and not as little importance as the regular ethical theorist would pay. Now the final recompense that we find is moral thinking is not totally algorithmic not totally algorithmic the human element is irreplaceable. Now that is a crucial aspect that we need to see that moral thinking is not totally algorithmic. So by the and the moral thinking advantage feature or crucial feature of moral thinking is that well of moral thinking in the situation ethicist perspective is that it cannot be totally algorithmatized it cannot be decrypted into principles. So that given a situation you can feed the input and get the output the human element that moderates moderates between the ethos and the decision. Ethos to decision this segment is given importance this is the human element and that is irreplaceable and what does the human element do the human element is talks of its capacity to know or to specify or to understand to understand the details of the situation understand situation understand situation intricacies and to pay importance to perspective of the agent. Now what is the flip side or what is the disadvantage of relativism well the spirit of love is difficult to codify and what cannot be codified faces the problems of ambiguity acting out of love can be the justification of a teacher punishing the student for the students own good in long term. Now acting out of now this is a crucial difficulty that situation ethicist face that it is difficult to codify and what cannot be codified no codification and what cannot be codification can always lead to ambiguity intentional or unintentional this is a leap that the situation ethicists take that well ideally there will be no ambiguity if the ethos is clear well that is not a very what we find in practice acting out of love can be the justification of a teacher and giving punishments the same teacher paying punishments giving punishments to students is could be clearly a violation of the students rights acting out of love gives cancels this thing called rights there are no more things called rights because it is acting out of love and decision making authority is in the hands of the agent. Now many people have seen situation ethicist ethics as an anti theory because it stretches into particularism and there can be no generic claims made if this middle level that we talked about which was situations and perspectives right from the ethos situation perspective and then came the decision. Now if this is the human element well and if this human element is so important then this simply means that no generic claims can be made because each of these elements in fact each of these elements are can always be different. So, in fact this in a way very fundamentally questions our ability to even theorize when the human value domain because these situations become crucial. Now let us sum up what is the upshot of this moral theory. Now this moral theory talks is well one a claim ahead of its time perhaps for a time when wicked intent and intentional misinterpretation are much lesser. Now the situation ethicist is of the claim that well the whatever charges of relativism that fall that come against situation ethics are because of the ambiguity of charges of ambiguity are because of willful misinterpretation or ambiguity of the ethos. But that may not really be the case always that may be the case most of the times. But very often an ethos finding an application via the domain of situation or the details of the situation is quite wavy one can see that well even if one is clear in the ethos it is not that all people with the same ethos or crystal clear ethos can actually lead to a better can lead to the identical judgments in identical circumstances. There is also something there is some intrinsical trouble in having ethos finding its application via the human agent. Now well one good thing that situation ethics does it brings to light the earlier neglect of the uniqueness of particulars and the perspective of the agent. They are not dismissible hindrances but essential components of the value domain. Now the situation ethicist has done a great service by bringing getting back importance to these two factors. Now these two factors became the ultimate got the ultimate importance with relativism. But so much so that theories were neglected and a lot of counter intuitive possibilities came up. Now situation ethics brings back the importance of the uniqueness of particulars that well particulars are a fact of the human predicament or human life and the perspective of the agent does matter. So, these are not dismissible hindrances but essential components of the value domain. The now at number 3 would be the eternal conflict or supposed conflict between justice and love. Well the situation ethicist find a compatibility between justice and love. They find justice is love in action. Now the situation ethicist also say that well ends are important and consequences do justify and motivate the equation. Now the pay importance that ends are important. It is not just means that whatever we do we do out of love and that love finds its direction from the possible ends. So, it is a form of consequentialism that when the consequences matter and the consequences shape the system. So, well to sum it up well we situation ethics is a refreshing change from the various ethical theories that tend to become increasingly abstract and thereby preventing the human element in moral decision making because after all it is about the value domain is about being human. It is not about having an algorithm to make take moral decisions. It is about being human and it is a predicament that humans face. So, situation ethics axiomatizes the human element and brings forth the uniqueness and the details or the intricacies of a circumstance with the perspective of the agent followed by an ethos into action. So, it is a clear reminder. It was a refreshing change from the erstwhile Christian moral tradition where the commandments were supposed to be inflexible and absolute and often when followed to the letter came up with counter intuitive results. But now when Fletcher puts forth this in the Christian tradition it wants to moderate the commandments into following it in spirit rather than in letter because following it in letter is perhaps too axiomatic. But in the same hand we see that well this is perhaps a situation way ahead of its time when everybody functions out of law. We need a system of rights, a system of laws where we have to factor in the possibility that the human element can sometimes willfully and sometimes unintentionally ambiguate the application of the ethos. So, this situation by itself left by itself in the current scenario may not be the ideal situation for it to work whereas on the other hand a society or a family or a group or a collective where we see situation ethics as the dominant moral way of working speaks very high of its moral evolution where the ethos is so well imbibed that it is absolutely stick in all its applications. So, with this we come to end of the brief discussion on situation ethics.