One key strength of Situation Ethics is that it puts people first before rules, relating back to the principle

of Personalism. The fact that people come first is something that most people would agree with and find preferential. This gives an override option for situations where rules do not seem appropriate to the circumstance. Another main strength of situation ethics is that it is teleological meaning that an action can change depending on the situation. Fletcher argues that the consequences are the most important feature of an action, seeing as it is what actually affects people. The action itself is deemed unimportant as long as it brings about the most loving result. Fletcher given the example of Mrs.Bergermire, who deliberately becomes pregnant with a man who was not her husband in order that she could be released from a prisoner of war camp. The Ten Commandments teaches that adultery is wrong. However, Fletcher could justify adultery under the circumstances. Actions such as adultery could be justified: although she committed adultery which is against Christian teachings she did so to be re-united with her family, an undeniably loving thing to do.

Fletcher attempts to reconcile the church with society on a practical level by suggesting that when making moral decisions - one should consult tradition, but be prepared to set it aside for the sake of agape love. He finds biblical evidence for this in Jesus teaching, which is the corner-stone of the Christian faith. Jesus himself criticised the Pharisees for being too legalistic. If Jesus acted as a situationist might and Christians must follow his example, then the two can be reconciled. As well as this the fact that Situation Ethics is derived from Jesus teachings makes it much more compatible for religious believers as they can still follow their religion whilst making decisions. Situation ethics is applicable to both secular and religious beliefs. Fletcher based the theory on Jesus teachings, although the ethic requires no grounded belief in God. The theory adheres to the fundamental principle of love thy neighbour and many of the parables which demonstrate agape, preached by Jesus, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan. It is additionally justified to state that Jesus taught similarly flexible morality, for example, he stated that man was made for Sabbath, not Sabbath for man, thus demonstrating anti nomianism beliefs.
One of the key strengths Of Situation Ethics, particularly in the ever-changing 21st century, is that it is current and up to date because of its flexibility and concern with producing the most loving outcome. With advancements in medical science for example, procedures such as stem cell research may offer dilemmas for religious believers; they may agree that the foetuses possess sanctity of life, and shouldnt be used even if it helps people. However, Situation Ethics would say that it is acceptable, as long as it produces a loving outcome, helping and saving people. Where elements of Natural Law and other strict laws in religion may not directly address current issues, leaving decision making difficult, Situation Ethics stays relevant as it can always be applied to an individual case, always based on the outcome of agape love.

Situation ethics can be seen as autonomous, meaning that you can make your own choices and do not have to restrict yourself to rules laid down by religious institutions which may be outdated and unsuited to todays society- We make decisions situationally in everyday life. This is good as it means that people do not have to feel pressured to make certain decisions which they may not want to and do not feel pressured to follow Biblical teachings, and they can decide what is best according to the idea of agape love (love for humanity) therefore ensuring the best outcome according to the situation. Also it means that it can on some levels appeal to a secular society as everyone can relate to an ethic which is based on love. One of the key strengths of Situation Ethic is the fact that it is flexible, meaning that an action can change depending on the situation of those involved even if it is the same situation. Being a flexible ethic means that people can avoid having to make hard decisions that may have an absolute rule if it was based upon absolute or deontological morality, which in turn gives people more of a chance to make the right decision and choose one that is beneficial for the majority, via love. Flexibility is vital for many in making a decision as it can fit around peoples morals and does not restrict them from following their beliefs of what is the most loving action to take and so it makes the ethic more compatible for most of society. One of the aims of situation ethics was to be more flexible than legalism A major response to Situation Ethics was the Church and its criticisms. Pope Pius berated Situation Ethics as it opposed and disregarded Gods revealed will, Natural Moral Law. The Church believed there was no reason to disregard the Ten Commandments as they contained rules which were necessary in keeping order in the world, as many would argue that without rules we would descend into moral chaos. William Barclay also criticised Situation Ethics as he believed human beings couldnt act without our emotions guiding our actions and subsequently the subject of what is right becomes more partial. Another weakness of situation ethics is that it fails to take into account human relationships and how our emotions will sway our moral judgement. It is wrong to say that a person put in a difficult moral position containing their loved ones will not choose them over a stranger, even if the most loving thing to do would be to save the stranger. A person cannot be expected to remove their emotions from the moral dilemma and choose the most loving thing, as they may not see it as the most loving thing due to the sway of their emotions. Consequently this is a major flaw of the ethic as it reduces its practicality in everyday life. As situation ethics is concerned with acting for the greatest amount of love, we could say that it will always be acting for good. However, it fails to take into account each persons individual subjective nature. This could have the effect of justifying crimes which one person may consider to be loving, but another might consider to be wrong. The fact that each person can make a different decision in identical circumstances to someone else, shows that there is a fundamental flaw in the ethical ideology of Situation ethics, showing it is not a practical ethic for todays society. William Barclay stated admittedly that we can be swayed by emotion, and convince ourselves we are doing the most loving thing when really we are doing what suits ourselves. A compromise of Situation Ethics is Bernard Hooses proportionalism. Bernard Hoose believed that Situation Ethics failed by not having any rules apart from acting out of love and many people disagreed with it such as Pope Pius; therefore he combined Situation Ethics ideas with Natural Moral Law, to make a compromise of both. This meant that it was not deontological in nature, but it gives

guidance of what to do in certain situations, so does not leave each person as an isolated moral decision maker.