-
A Philosophical Appraisal Of Joseph Fletcher’s New Morality
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
(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.â€[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.â€[6]
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 3]
Page 2 of 3
-
