ATTENTION:
BEFORE
YOU READ THE CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE
INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!
INFORMATION:
YOU CAN
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000
ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420
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.
HOW TO GET THE FULL PROJECT WORK
PLEASE, print the following
instructions and information if you will like to order/buy our complete written
material(s).
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)
After paying the appropriate amount
(#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to
08068231953 or 08168759420
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send your material(s) after
we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 0046579864
Bank: GTBank.
OR
Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI
Account Number: 2023350498
Bank: UBA.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL:
08068231953 or 08168759420
AFFILIATE
Comments
Post a Comment