Despite individuals being unique, what do we need to recognise?
Individuals are unique but from the moral point of view, important to recognise what they have in common. Many diffs between individuals not morally significant e.g. colour, intelligence, strength.
What should the presumption be?
Presumption should be that all are to be treated in the same way unless the differences between them are such as to justify different treatment. (A mentally handicapped adult who steals may legitimately be treated differently from a fully competent adult.)
What must love do to not degenerate into who you like?
If love is not to degenerate into being simply a matter of liking or preference for someone then it must recognise the claims of equality.
Why is it not viable today?
Sit Ethics not viable today as it is too individualistic for connected global village in which we must function. Present need is for a global ethic, focusing on what people have in common.
Just because rules change what doesn't it mean?
Yes,rules may become outdated and need to be changed, but this does not necessarily mean that it would be better to be without rules altogether.
What will there always be?
There may be occasional necessary exceptions BUT they will be exceptions to the rule.
What problem occurs with it being consequentialists?
Situation ethics is a consequentialist system - concerned with the most loving possible end. Seems to suggest that any action which helped reach the end would be acceptable. HOWEVER are there not some actions which are so horrendous that they ought to ruled out altogether, whatever end they might achieve? E.g. the scenario in which the terrorist's child must be tortured in order to save 1000's.
What is there a degree of confusion about?
ALSO there is also a degree of confusion about whether or not love is the 'end' or whether, as Augustine suggested, it is also the 'means' i.e., the 'how' of actions.
What can you conclude about love being a means?
If love is also a means then it might be argued that an unloving means could never be used to justify a loving end.
What can you argue about love being a means?
If love is also a means then it might be argued that Situation Ethics has aspects in common with deontological thinking on ethics
If someone is trying to act in accord with the demands of love then they must exercise both wisdom and understanding. Love should always be directed that it might bring about good things for our neighbours BUT love can be misguided: a loving attitude does not necessarily lead to a loving act. •.
How do we answer ethical questions
Loving action must be determined primarily in terms of the needs of others. To answer the question, 'What ought I to do?' with the advice, 'Do what love bids you' is of no help at all. All the knotty ethical problems still have to be answered. An appeal to love does not bypass these issues
Determining the most loving thing
It is no simple matter to determine what is the most loving thing in any situation.