The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon: The Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe4 The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
The way the video is split up is also very helpful. Allows me to make notes/rewatch certain parts of the video. I just wish all educational videos like this were done the same way!
15:00 btw at the end here I have to correct "Christianity is a rules based religion" -- not true, that's closer to Judaism and Islam that are more Legalistic in nature, or deontological. Christianity is more of a faith based religion around "Grace", the idea is that Christ already paid the full payment for our sins and we don't have to follow 100 rules, we simply have to acknowledge our sinful ways and accept him and his sacrifice he paid for our sins to gain salvation. I'd say it's closer to virtue ethics cause your shedding your sinful ways to get born again in the holy spirit and walk a holier path of truth, hopefully.
He said that the theory is impractical because people prefer their eros or filia over agape and make decisions in favour of people who are close to them. And then asked "would you prefer to save 5 people over saving your own child while you have only limited time for one option". I do not think that we can count this argument as a valid counter argument because morality does not have to be easily applicable.
I have been watching these videos for 2 years now and they are beyond helpful for revision. Sitting my final exam in a couple of hours so I wanted to say a big thank you!
I set next to Joseph Fletcher for five minutes about, maybe fifty-five years ago. He told me the name of the book he had written, and he said Ayn Rand was not a philosopher.
I think the guiding principle should not be love, but rather necessity. The speed limit in a medical emergency for example. It's not very loving to the other drivers to be speeding past them possibly causing them to wreck and be injured themselves, but out of the necessity of saving the person's life (or perhaps even your own) in the immediate it is the most necessary course of action. The starving child we would steal the food for them so they do not die, out of necessity but also out of love, but that's not so loving to the store owner. So we see they do overlap in many cases, but the immediate necessity I believe should be the guidance. For instance, if a man falls in agape love with someone other than his wife, he doesn't have the right to just leave his wife and marry someone else because he loves someone else now. However, if his wife is consistently, unrepentantly abusive to the point of physical and/or serious mental harm and refuses to stop, then necessity would dictate leaving her for saftey and health reasons. Both have the same result i.e. divorce, but one would be obviously immoral and one would be moral and the just course of action based on necessity of the situation.
you cannot "fall in agape love" with someone, that would be eros which is not the leading principle of situation ethics. Apage is selfless, unconditional love essentially putting others before yourself.
@@user-ip8lg3uz2u Indeed my Greek is a little rusty, however, you get the point. That is, that necessity should be the guiding principle, not love as mentioned in the other examples, and I'm sure we could all think of a million more besides those.
Fletcher thinks that legalism and antinomianism are too extreme. He proposes Situation Ethics is a more plausible median between these two positions. So legalism and antinomianism don't really affect Situation Ethics, Fletcher just thinks that legalists and antinomians are wrong, and Situation Ethicists are right. Hope that helps
I don't think consequentialism and christian ethics have to be at odd though. Considering you can have something like two-level utilitarianism where most people act according to moral rules most of the time. So that you still denigrate the rules in the Bible to such ones. Not to mention all of the consequentialist aspects of God in the Bible. Namely in Christian eschatology along with any other time disasters are done to prevent evil.
Yes that is something we have in mind. We are planning to do a spin off type show eventually where we discuss deep issues but not so much academic philosophy. Gun policy is definitely on that list.
There is no reason to be dragging the mythical JC into this proposal. And, no human can conceptualize, never mind love, "all mankind." Thus situation ethics is one of those schemes where impossible parameters are introduced as theory while remaining impossible in reality, making it an academic exercise not a functional system.
As the video says, I consider that Situation Ethics breaks the rules of religions, such as the Christian religion. Religion gives to you a number of divine rules that you must follow no matter what, like the ten commandments in the Christian religion. However, Situation Ethics tells you that the solution of every ethical problem depends on the situation. If the solution of a problem depends on the situation, then, you cannot use divine rules, because the divine rules must be followed no matter the situation. In other words, I consider that it is not possible to be in a religion and, at the same time, agree with situation ethics. The prove of this is Joseph Fletcher himself. He was born in 1905, and he became christian when he was 18 years old (more or less in 1923). In 1966, he invented the notion of Situation Ethics, and then, one year later, in 1967, he became atheist. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Very interesting that he later identified as an atheist! However, I would say that Fletcher's Situation Ethics is intended to derive from Jesus' teachings. For instance, he teaches that the most important divine laws are to love your neighbour and love God, and he frequently berates the Pharisees (legalists) for their strict adherence to the laws. I would say that it's entirely plausible to be a Christian and a Situation Ethicist. Even the Ten Commandments are a product of their own time, whose audience is primarily adult Israelite males.
Depends on your religion. Some Christians even, adhere to situation ethics. In fact, the bible Itself seems to indicate that right and wrong isn't clear cut, but should be based on love. I think it was the proverbs that says in paraphrase "we aren't hard on people that steal because of hunger". The Jesuits, if I remember right, believe in the dogma "the end justify the means". Jesus himself worked on the sabbath when he saw people suffering from illness for example. It very much comes built into Christian thought, depending on a congregation's interpretation of the bible. I'm not as versed in other religions, but I know that daoism seems to be adaptable to this idea. Buddhism isn't heavy on rules either if I remember correctly. I'm not saying this theory is correct, but I'm just saying it is compatible in religion.
The objections to consequentialism at the very end are theologically incorrect. See John Walton’s Lost World of the Torah which dispels the myths of The Law as prescriptive permanent universal moral principles. The ancient Law was not legislation that prevails beyond ancient Temple Judaism. It was wisdom literature taken from ancient near East culture in the pursuit of covenantal nomism, with no intention to apply to Gentile peoples born outside of the covenant (treaty) between God and Israel. Therefore, Gentiles living today outside of a temple covenant (100% of us) must use situation ethics to determine the morality of each decision. Jeremiah the prophet predicted this development when he said in the latter days the old stone covenant would be replaced by an invisible moral conscience that would inform and transform people who walked in the way of this new principle. Christians interpret this principle to be the Agape love of Sf Paul’s epistles and St John’s first letter. Love triumphs over law in the common era.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon:
The Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe4
The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
These videos are so helpful for my RS A-Level... you have no idea! Thank you!
A pleasure, glad we could help. Best of luck in the A-Level course.
Same with IB philosophy here
LOVED this one! Man you guys have a great format, hope you get widely discovered
Thank you so much!!! Glad you're enjoying the content,
The way the video is split up is also very helpful. Allows me to make notes/rewatch certain parts of the video. I just wish all educational videos like this were done the same way!
Very happy you found this video useful, thank you for watching.
Thank you so much for opening this youTube channel. I'm a student of philosophy nd your videos helps me alot.
It is a pleasure, so happy we can help! Thank you for watching :)
Am also a student of philosophy and their videos are so relatable
I love this! The guy in violet was speaking gold.
Thank you :)
15:00 btw at the end here I have to correct "Christianity is a rules based religion" -- not true, that's closer to Judaism and Islam that are more Legalistic in nature, or deontological. Christianity is more of a faith based religion around "Grace", the idea is that Christ already paid the full payment for our sins and we don't have to follow 100 rules, we simply have to acknowledge our sinful ways and accept him and his sacrifice he paid for our sins to gain salvation. I'd say it's closer to virtue ethics cause your shedding your sinful ways to get born again in the holy spirit and walk a holier path of truth, hopefully.
Nice to hear the discussion in the end. I had a project on situation ethics so this helped understanding the different views!
Glad we could help 😀
He said that the theory is impractical because people prefer their eros or filia over agape and make decisions in favour of people who are close to them. And then asked "would you prefer to save 5 people over saving your own child while you have only limited time for one option". I do not think that we can count this argument as a valid counter argument because morality does not have to be easily applicable.
Thank you for talking about the similarities/differences between situation ethics and utilitarianism, because I was wondering about that.
GEORGE WAS NOT PLAYING TODAY!! LOVE IT!!! LETS GOOOOO!!!
I have been watching these videos for 2 years now and they are beyond helpful for revision. Sitting my final exam in a couple of hours so I wanted to say a big thank you!
You're welcome, glad we could help. Best of luck in the exam.
Got my as level paper 1 exam on Friday and this channel is so helpful. Thank you so much
You're welcome, good luck in the exam.
I love all your vids, so helpful for my revision!!
Glad we could help :)
I set next to Joseph Fletcher for five minutes about, maybe fifty-five years ago. He told me the name of the book he had written, and he said Ayn Rand was not a philosopher.
I think the guiding principle should not be love, but rather necessity. The speed limit in a medical emergency for example. It's not very loving to the other drivers to be speeding past them possibly causing them to wreck and be injured themselves, but out of the necessity of saving the person's life (or perhaps even your own) in the immediate it is the most necessary course of action. The starving child we would steal the food for them so they do not die, out of necessity but also out of love, but that's not so loving to the store owner. So we see they do overlap in many cases, but the immediate necessity I believe should be the guidance. For instance, if a man falls in agape love with someone other than his wife, he doesn't have the right to just leave his wife and marry someone else because he loves someone else now. However, if his wife is consistently, unrepentantly abusive to the point of physical and/or serious mental harm and refuses to stop, then necessity would dictate leaving her for saftey and health reasons. Both have the same result i.e. divorce, but one would be obviously immoral and one would be moral and the just course of action based on necessity of the situation.
Nicely put.
you cannot "fall in agape love" with someone, that would be eros which is not the leading principle of situation ethics. Apage is selfless, unconditional love essentially putting others before yourself.
@@user-ip8lg3uz2u Indeed my Greek is a little rusty, however, you get the point. That is, that necessity should be the guiding principle, not love as mentioned in the other examples, and I'm sure we could all think of a million more besides those.
Thank you for this video....... please make more detailed videos like this......
Thanks for watching :)
I love your videos, especially the part of the criticisms. Is really eye 👁️👁️ opening and creates more awareness.
Thank you very much :D
I love the arguement!❤❤❤ Purple guy has a strong point
You have no idea how useful these videos are for my alevels omg
Glad we could help :D Best of luck in your A-Levels.
@@PhilosophyVibe I got an A* on my first essay thanks to you!
@vikisonline17 Congratulations, that’s fantastic.
The objections were STRONG!
The criticisms against Situation Ethics:
"I want to know what love is! I want you to show meeeeeee!"
*Situation ethics is the New Morality; its relativistic and leads to double standards. However these two seem to present it as the golden rule*
It's really double standard. And In my opinion people could use it to commit crimes and give silly excuses to cover their crime
Very helpful and clear, thankyou!
A pleasure, glad it was helpful.
how does legalism and antinomianism affect situation ethics? i wanted to get your opinion on this question
Fletcher thinks that legalism and antinomianism are too extreme. He proposes Situation Ethics is a more plausible median between these two positions. So legalism and antinomianism don't really affect Situation Ethics, Fletcher just thinks that legalists and antinomians are wrong, and Situation Ethicists are right. Hope that helps
thnx for the video, it was really good and very helpful👍
Glad we could help 😀
I don't think consequentialism and christian ethics have to be at odd though. Considering you can have something like two-level utilitarianism where most people act according to moral rules most of the time. So that you still denigrate the rules in the Bible to such ones.
Not to mention all of the consequentialist aspects of God in the Bible. Namely in Christian eschatology along with any other time disasters are done to prevent evil.
Thank you about this ♥️
You're welcome :)
Can you do a vid on gun policy one day
Yes that is something we have in mind. We are planning to do a spin off type show eventually where we discuss deep issues but not so much academic philosophy. Gun policy is definitely on that list.
Very helpful!
If multiple parties cannot agree on an ethical theory, is it better to have no theory?
Peter do you agape me ?
Jesus....
@@Jamric-gr8gr One and only...
im doing A-Level and ive realised i agree with no philosopher or moral guiding principles such as agape and fletcher.
Sir as you said Christian doctrine of love is example of positivism….how hatred of many Christians against lgbtqi people is justified here
That's a little misuse of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's "anarchy is order without power" symbol there...
Sounds like utilitarianism but centered around love.
Well he said the same thing in the video.
my boy on the left speaking facts, as usual
Wow. Just so good
Thank you.
latter sirrrr has a point there. many pointsss
Thanks lads
Pleasure :)
There is no reason to be dragging the mythical JC into this proposal. And, no human can conceptualize, never mind love, "all mankind." Thus situation ethics is one of those schemes where impossible parameters are introduced as theory while remaining impossible in reality, making it an academic exercise not a functional system.
As the video says, I consider that Situation Ethics breaks the rules of religions, such as the Christian religion.
Religion gives to you a number of divine rules that you must follow no matter what, like the ten commandments in the Christian religion. However, Situation Ethics tells you that the solution of every ethical problem depends on the situation. If the solution of a problem depends on the situation, then, you cannot use divine rules, because the divine rules must be followed no matter the situation.
In other words, I consider that it is not possible to be in a religion and, at the same time, agree with situation ethics. The prove of this is Joseph Fletcher himself. He was born in 1905, and he became christian when he was 18 years old (more or less in 1923). In 1966, he invented the notion of Situation Ethics, and then, one year later, in 1967, he became atheist. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Wow! Your last sentence nails the hammer on the head.
Very interesting that he later identified as an atheist! However, I would say that Fletcher's Situation Ethics is intended to derive from Jesus' teachings. For instance, he teaches that the most important divine laws are to love your neighbour and love God, and he frequently berates the Pharisees (legalists) for their strict adherence to the laws.
I would say that it's entirely plausible to be a Christian and a Situation Ethicist. Even the Ten Commandments are a product of their own time, whose audience is primarily adult Israelite males.
Depends on your religion. Some Christians even, adhere to situation ethics. In fact, the bible Itself seems to indicate that right and wrong isn't clear cut, but should be based on love. I think it was the proverbs that says in paraphrase "we aren't hard on people that steal because of hunger". The Jesuits, if I remember right, believe in the dogma "the end justify the means". Jesus himself worked on the sabbath when he saw people suffering from illness for example. It very much comes built into Christian thought, depending on a congregation's interpretation of the bible. I'm not as versed in other religions, but I know that daoism seems to be adaptable to this idea. Buddhism isn't heavy on rules either if I remember correctly.
I'm not saying this theory is correct, but I'm just saying it is compatible in religion.
legend - recommended to my mates who also up shit creak with a levels
Thank you! Glad you found it useful. Good luck in your a levels.
hi to the people in my english class
AYE
purple guy on smoke
Sir isn’t Indian vedic philosophy of “vasudaiv kutumbakam” i.e whloe world is family is an example of “agape”…
The objections to consequentialism at the very end are theologically incorrect. See John Walton’s Lost World of the Torah which dispels the myths of The Law as prescriptive permanent universal moral principles. The ancient Law was not legislation that prevails beyond ancient Temple Judaism. It was wisdom literature taken from ancient near East culture in the pursuit of covenantal nomism, with no intention to apply to Gentile peoples born outside of the covenant (treaty) between God and Israel. Therefore, Gentiles living today outside of a temple covenant (100% of us) must use situation ethics to determine the morality of each decision. Jeremiah the prophet predicted this development when he said in the latter days the old stone covenant would be replaced by an invisible moral conscience that would inform and transform people who walked in the way of this new principle. Christians interpret this principle to be the Agape love of Sf Paul’s epistles and St John’s first letter. Love triumphs over law in the common era.
i see
Wowwwww
I love Jesus Christ 😍❤