Situation ethics does have rules and principles to abide by. However, situationists are allowed to set these general rules aside if it seems more loving to do so. Situational ethics is a teleological theory as it is mainly concerned with the outcome and if this outcome is the most loving thing. Fletcher argued that “loves decisions are made situationally not prescriptively” this statement can be accounted for by the actions of Jesus Christ himself. Christianity teaches that people should not work on the day of Sabbath as God himself didn’t and that it should be the day of rest.
Situation ethics works towards a successful end goal which in this case is love, this is pragmatism. The ethic is relativistic which means that there are no fixed rules when choosing what to do but whatever is done must stay relative to the Christian love of agape, making it simple and easy to make decisions accordingly. Positivism is where faith statements are made and people act in a way that is reasonable in the light of these statements. Reason isn’t the basis for faith, but it works within faith. Situation ethics depends on Christians freely choosing faith that god is love, so giving first place to Christian love.
I think people were drawn to his beliefs because his beliefs were different from Calvin’s. Although Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola had different views about their beliefs, they were caring and praising of the same god. They both strongly believed in their beliefs and fought for it no matter what. In my opinion both Calvin and Ignatius of Loyola’s beliefs were right. I believe that it doesn’t matter how or where you believe in god just as long as you believe so that you can truly receive Salvation.
Is religion the root of all evil in global society? I personally disagree that religion is the real reason of all the evil that happens in our world today, and believe that the statement is one of the first quasi attempts to try to understand and to deal with evil. Religion in its essence is just a prescription to a better way of life and a guidance system for the heart and character. Religion is replete with motivation. However, it is just not too obvious and as progressive as it should be and the preachers/religious leaders need higher standards in method and scrutiny to keep up with civilization.
Many Christians express their views against Euthanasia because of their belief in the Sanctity of Life, which declares no killing is acceptable or justifiable. On the other hand, due to modern changes in society, many Christians are in line with the belief of the quality of a person’s life rather than the sanctity. Overall, we can see that Euthanasia is indeed compatible with the changes in our modern society but not with the traditional view of the sanctity of life which some Christians still hold. Even though I’m against Euthanasia, the outcome was morally right. I think it was morally right as it put a person out of their misery, and since the court, the doctors and the nurses, and the parents had agreed to the death of Anthony Bland, and then I would allow this case to proceed.
However, if someone following situation ethics wasn’t a Christian, then they would be forced to make a decision based on a religion that they don’t believe in; but it could be argued that Christian love is similar to religions all around the world. The third presumption is positivism, which states that moral commands must have a chance of a successful end. This guides the situationist due to the fact that it states that it helps
As item A suggests, functionalist approaches often focus on religion’s contribution to social integration. Parsons also believed that religion promotes value consensus, by attaching sacred qualities to society’s norms and values. Parsons also, however, identified the fact that religion supports the individual’s needs by providing answers to otherwise unanswerable questions. Malinowksi also believes that religion promotes social solidarity, but through its psychological functions. He established two situations where religion helps individuals to cope with emotional stress, which would otherwise undermine social solidarity.
Religion is very hard to define. Many sociologists have tried to work out a suitable definition of religion. Durkheim, a functionalist defined it as a unified belief system of beliefs about the nature of sacred things. Conservative means keeping things the way they are. A number of sociologists argue that religion is a conservative force in society and it reinforces the shared needs and values of society.
Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education. He says that all decisions by man are a result of the values which man has received from god and without these values we would be left to a life full of disorder. Religion indirectly affects the state through mores which are described as “the whole moral and intellectual state of a people.”(287) These mores are what prevents democracies from being engulfed by the dangers which are products of tyranny and despotism. In a state without religion “each man gets into the way of having nothing but confused and changing notions about the matters of greatest importance to himself and his fellows”(444) and when combating materialism, the presence of religion “places the
The individual sees religion performing a significant function allowing them to feel apart of society and seeing that religion strengthens us to face life's trials and motivates us to overcome obstacles that would otherwise overpower us. Durkheim used the religion of Aborigines to develop his argument. He calls their religion 'totemism', as each clan of aborigines had a sacred symbol called a totem which was a symbol of their gods and of their society. Therefore, he argues the people are really worshipping society. However, Durkheim's analysis has been criticised as he only looked at small pre-industrial societies so his views do not apply to complex modern societies.