A PHILOSOPHICAL APPRAISAL OF JOSEPH FLETCHER’S NEW MORALITY

A PHILOSOPHICAL
APPRAISAL OF JOSEPH

FLETCHER’S NEW
MORALITY

CHAPTER ONE

1.0      STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The problem
to be treated is about moral decision-making. How is one to act when faced with
a moral decisive situation? Life presents us with situations where decisions
are not so clear-cut. Saying yes to one perceived good often means saying no to
another. The question “what ought I to do” in a given situation raises conflict
for us. Making decisions is a part of man’s life. Man tries to make the right
decisions always because a wrong decision taken can be detrimental to both an
individual and the community. Hence, B. O. Eboh observes that, “It is often
difficult to take a moral decision in a given situation because of the many
other facts which may surround such a situation”[1].
The point is that there are many realities to be taken into consideration in
moral decision-making.

At this
point, one may ask: “what moral decision am I to take in a moral situation?”

 

 

1.1       APPROACHES TO DECISION MAKING

There are
three main alternative routes or approaches to follow in making moral
decisions. They are: (1) the legalistic approach, (2) the antinormian approach,
the extreme opposites i.e. a lawless or unprincipled approach; and (3) the
situational approach. All these three have played their part in the history of
Western morals.

 

(A)     LEGALISM

Legalism is the most common and
persistent approach to decision making. It triumphed among the Jews after the
exile and has dominated Christianity constantly from very early days. There
exist a series of well-defined and absolute laws (secular, cultural and
religious) that the individual must implement in every situation. Legalism sees
moral rules and principles not as guides but absolute norms that must be obeyed
at all costs and in all situations. With this approach, one enters into every
decision-making situation armed with already-made rules and regulations.
Fletcher affirms that, “legalism looks at the letter of the law and insists on
its observance while ignoring the spirit of the law”.[2] However,
questions arise as to whether in a particular case the law truly applies or as
to which of several more or less conflicting laws is to be followed. In this
case, the legalist applies casuistry.

According to
Joseph Fletcher, legalism in the Christian tradition has taken two forms: In
the catholic line of thought, it has been a matter of legalistic reason, based
on nature or natural law. Hence he says:

These moralists have tended to
adumbuarate their ethical rules by applying human reason to the facts of
nature, both human and sub-human and to the lessons of historical experience.
By this procedure they claim to have adduced universally agreed and therefore
valid natural moral laws.[3]

In the
protestant line of thought, it has also followed the same deductive catholic
tactics. From this perspective, Fletcher observes:

They have taken scripture
and done with it what the, Catholics do with nature. Their scriptural moral law
is, they argue, based on the words and saying of the law and the prophets, the
evangelist and apostles of the bible.[4]

As such, for him it is a matter
of legalistic revelation in the protestant line of thought. However, both the
catholic line of thought and the protestant line of thought are legalistic. Not
even the fact that the catholic moralists deal also with revealed law and the
protestant also have tried to use reason in interpreting the saying of the
bible, Fletcher still maintains that both of them, by and large, have been
committed to the doctrine of law ethics, which is legalism.

(B)   ANTINORMIANISM

This is the
approach with which one enters into the decision-making situation armed with no
principles or maxims whatsoever. Literally, the term antinomianism means
‘against law’. Here, each individual enters the decision making process with no
laws, guiding principles or maxims, believing that they will make the right
decisions spontaneously in the moment, and base on the unique situation. Some
antinormianists believe this ‘right decision’ information comes to them from an
outside source such as the Holy Spirit or the combined wisdom of the ages under
the guise of intuition. Antinormianism is a lawless and principleless approach
to moral decision-making. It rejects all moral laws and principles and insist
that man is free to take any decision he deems fit in any situation.

Among the
Hellenistic Jew-Christians, antinormianism took the form of libertinism. They
believe that by grace, by the new life in Christ and salvation by faith, laws
or rules no longer apply to Christians. Their ultimate happy faith was now
assured and it no longer mattered what they did. The negative result of this
form of antinormianism led to an increase of legalism. Another form of antinormianism
was a Gnostic claim to special knowledge so that neither principles nor rules
were needed any longer even as guidelines and direction pointers. Those who go
by it, claimed that they will just know what was right when thy needed to know.
As such, their moral decisions are random and unpredictable. Making moral
decisions is a matter of spontaneity.

 

(C)   SITUATIONISM

The third
approach to decision making is situationism. If legalism and antinormianism are
the two ends of the spectrum, situationism falls between them. Here, each
individual has an understanding of the general rules and guiding principles of
his or her culture and theology, and uses the information to evaluate the
situation and then adopts or rejects the ‘rule’ so that love or highest good
can be served in the situation. Situationism accepts that there are universal
moral principles but it sees them only as guides in ones decision-making. 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. Just the same way, he is prepared in
any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love
seems better served by doing so.  Joseph
Omoregbe observes that for the Situationists, “moral principles are not
directives or absolute laws which must be obeyed at all costs.”[5] Situation
ethics goes path of the way with natural law, by accepting reason as the
instrument of moral judgement while rejecting the notion that the good is given
in the nature of things. It also goes path of the way with scriptural law by
accepting revelation as the source of the norms while rejecting all revealed
laws or norms except the command to love. The decisions taken by a situationist
are hypothetical and not categorical. Only the command to love is categorically
good. Thus, Fletcher says, “Situation ethics aims at a contextual
appropriateness- not the ‘good’ nor the ‘right’ but the fitting.”[6]

There are
various names for this approach: Situationism, contextualism, occasionlism,
circumstantialism or actualism. These labels indicate of course, that the core
of the ethics they describe is a healthy and primary awareness that
circumstances alter cases. Situationism places emphases on the situation more
than anything else in determining which action is right or wrong in any given
situation.

Having seen
the three different approaches to decision making, it is important to point out
at this early stage that there is no one of these approaches that has the
absolute answer to the issue of making a moral decision. The words of Eboh
explained this point better:

What needs to be highlighted
is that in moral spheres, there is always a blending of colours. It is never
one colour, it is always a mixture of colours each colour is a shade of human
factors in moral decision making.[7]

What is
being stressed here is that there is need for prudence while making any moral
decision, and not to follow one of these approaches fanatically.