A Philosophical Appraisal Of Joseph Fletcher’s New Morality
Chapter One
Statement Of Problem
The problem to be treated is about moral decision- timber. How is one to act when faced with a moral decisive situation? Life presents us with situations where opinions aren’t so clear- cut. Saying yes to one perceived good frequently means saying no to another. The question “ what ought I to do ” in a given situation raises conflict for us. Making opinions is a part of man’s life. Man tries to make the right opinions always because a wrong decision taken can be mischievous to both an individual and the community. Hence,B.O. Eboh observes that, “ It’s frequently delicate to take a moral decision in a given situation because of the numerous other data which may compass such a situation ”( 1). The point is that there are numerous realities to be taken into consideration in moral decision- timber.
At this point, one may ask “ what moral decision am I to take in a moral situation? ”
APPROACHES TO DECISION MAKING
There are three main volition routes or approaches to follow in making moral opinions. They’re( 1) the legalistic approach,( 2) the antinormian approach, the extreme contraries i.e. a lawless or unconscionable 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 patient approach to decision timber. It triumphed among the Jews after the exile and has dominated Christianity constantly from veritably early days. There live a series of well- defined and absolute laws( temporal, artistic and religious) that the existent must apply in every situation. Legalism sees moral rules and principles not as attendants but absolute morals that must be adhered at all costs and in all situations. With this approach, one enters into every decision- making situation armed with formerly- 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) still, questions arise as to whether in a particular case the law truly applies or as to which of several more or less disagreeing 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 unqualified line of study, it has been a matter of legalistic reason, grounded on nature or natural law. Hence he says
These bluenoses have tended to adumbuarate their ethical rules by applying mortal reason to the data of nature, both mortal and bestial and to the assignments of literal experience. By this procedure they claim to have cited widely agreed and thus valid natural moral laws.( 3)
In the protestant line of study, it has also followed the same deducible unqualified tactics. From this perspective, Fletcher observes
They’ve taken Book and done with it what the, Catholics do with nature. Their scriptural moral law is, they argue, grounded on the words and saying of the law and the prophets, the evangelist and apostles of the bible.( 4)
As similar, for him it’s a matter of legalistic disclosure in the protestant line of study. still, both the unqualified line of study and the protestant line of study are legalistic. Not indeed the fact that the unqualified bluenoses deal also with revealed law and the protestant also have tried to use reason in interpreting the byword 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 bywords whatsoever. Literally, the term antinomianism means ‘ against law ’. Then, each individual enters the decision making process with no laws, guiding principles or bywords, believing that they will make the right opinions spontaneously in the moment, and base on the unique situation. Some antinormianists believe this ‘ right decision ’ information comes to them from an outside source similar as the Holy Spirit or the combined wisdom of the periods under the guise of suspicion. Antinormianism is a lawless and principleless approach to moral decision- timber. It rejects all moral laws and principles and contend that man is free to take any decision he deems fit in any situation.
Among the Hellenistic Jew- Christians, antinormianism took the form of corruption. They believe that by grace, by the new life in Christ and deliverance by faith, laws or rules no longer apply to Christians. Their ultimate happy faith was now assured and it no longer signified 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 demanded any longer indeed as guidelines and direction pointers. Those who go by it, claimed that they will just know what was right when thy demanded to know. As similar, their moral opinions are arbitrary and changeable. Making moral opinions is a matter of naturalness.
C) SITUATIONISM
The third approach to decision timber issituationism.However, situationism falls between them, If legalism and antinormianism are the two ends of the diapason. Then, each existent has an understanding of the general rules and guiding principles of his or her culture and theology, and uses the information to estimate the situation and also adopts or rejects the ‘ rule ’ so that love or loftiest good can be served in the situation. Situationism accepts that there are universal moral principles but it sees them only as attendants in bones decision- timber. The situationist enters into every decision- making situation completely fortified with the ethical bywords of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems. Just the same way, he’s prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them away in the situation if love seems better served by doing so. Joseph Omoregbe observes that for the Situationists, “ moral principles aren’t directives or absolute laws which must be adhered 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 effects. It also goes path of the way with scriptural law by accepting disclosure as the source of the morals while rejecting all revealed laws or morals except the command to love. The opinions taken by a situationist are academic and not categorical. Only the command to love is categorically good. therefore, Fletcher says, “ Situation ethics aims at a contextual felicitousness not the ‘ good ’ nor the ‘ right ’ but the fitting. ”( 6)
There are colorful names for this approach Situationism, contextualism, occasionlism, circumstantialism or actualism. These markers indicate of course, that the core of the ethics they describe is a healthy and primary mindfulness that circumstances alter cases. Situationism places stresses on the situation further than anything differently in determining which action is right or wrong in any given situation.
Having seen the three different approaches to decision timber, it’s important to point out at this early stage that there’s no bone of these approaches that has the absolute answer to the issue of making a moral decision. The words of Eboh explained this point more
What needs to be stressed is that in moral spheres, there’s always a blending of colours. It’s noway one colour, it’s always a admixture of colours each colour is a shade of mortal factors in moral decision timber.( 7)
What’s being stressed then’s that there’s need for prudence while making any moral decision, and not to follow one of these approaches fanatically.
1)B.O. Eboh, Living Issues in Ethics( Nsukka Afro- Orbis cantina . Company, 2005)p. 34
2)J. Fletcher, opcit.,p. 18
3) Ibid,p. 21
4) Ibid.
5).J. Omoregbe, Ethics A Methodical And literal Approach( Lagos Joja press, 1993)p. 257
6)J. Fletcher opcit.,p. 27 – 28.
7)B.O. Eboh, opcit.,p. 35
Leave a Comment