I. Examine the case below.

Discuss your evaluation of Igta's action and write in about

fifteen sentences in the space provided.
Raphael Igta, a military intelligence officer, was able to capture one of the bombers,
Agus, who recently bombed and decimated a 7-storey building in Cebu City, killed 27
individuals, and injured almost a hundred. Upon learning that two other bombs could go
off in three hours, Igta tortured Agus to extract information regarding the location of the
other bombs and thus hope to prevent their explosion.
How would a situaton ethicist view Igta's act?
In situation ethics, acts are assessed by the circumstances not relying on
absolute moral standards thus there is no universal basis for morality. This thought was
referred to as antinomianism which defines actions as being unrestrained by any ethical
laws. Rather than assessing the rightness or wrongness of a decision based on moral
standards, situations are evaluated in relation to the laws of love or “agape”. Agape
refers to an unconditional and a pure type of love signifying it does not require anything
in return. As long as love is the purpose of such a decision, then the end would justify
the means. In addition, situation ethics is based on four principles–pragmatism which
means it has to be practicable; relativism which refers to how there is no present rule;
positivism which refers to putting one’s faith first, and personalism which means that we,
people, must be centered.
Raphael Igta and Agus's situation is a situation that requires weighing on two
options. Igta could discontinue torturing Agus yet if he does so, there may be a huge
probability that hundreds of civilians will die due to the bombs that Agus planted. On the
other hand, Igta could continue torturing Agus and obtain vital information that could
save hundreds of innocents from death. In situation ethics, a person does not base
one’s actions on what the universal moral standard states rather, it bases on the idea of
agape as well the four principles. Considering the circumstances, Igta should choose to
continue torturing Agus to extract crucial information that could help save hundreds of
people from death. Igta’s work as a military officer is being tasked to protect and serve
the people thus he should think of his love for his people and his city. Even though he is
sacrificing Agus’ life, risking hundreds more won’t justify the ends if he does choose to
not extract crucial information. Igta would have acted against his morals regardless of
which decision he would take. For situation ethics, it would be better off to extract
information from Agus considering that he did it for the love of his people, his city, and
possibly for his loved ones. Based on the idea of situation ethics, he did not do such an
act for nothing but he did it for his unconditional love for the people and city who may be
at risk of death due to Agus’ crime. Igta’s actions would mean that he loves his city,
people, and loved ones therefore he would sacrifice not for his gain but the gain of most
people. Despite risking his morals, the love and service for his people and city would
justify his actions.
 To sum it up, in line with the thought provided by situation ethics, Igta would
decide to continue torturing Agus due to his unconditional love towards his people, his
city, and his loved ones. Between the two options, the decision to continue torturing
would be the most practical and is the decision that centers around people. Such a
decision agrees with the four principles rather than choosing to stop torturing.

II. Research online for two arguments against situation ethics. Contrast them with
the arguments for situation ethics and decide which view is logically acceptable.
Write your justification.
Not all have agreed with the thought provided by situation ethics. Joseph
Fletcher’s theory of situation ethics was faced with various criticisms and oppositions
from various individuals mostly because of how it disrupts and confuses moral
standards. One of the arguments against situation ethics was how it promotes
subjectivity as well as individualism. Another argument faced by situation ethics was
how the theory is vague and inaccurate particularly with the thought of love and
situation.
The first argument faced by situation ethics was how the theory promotes
subjectivity and individualism in choosing decisions. In situation ethics, there is no basis
of moral standards as one decides and acts merely on the thought of love or agape as
well as the four principles. Most people argued that situation ethics makes morality
subjective thus, people are free to act according to their own will without limitations. Due
to the absence of restrictions, people are allowed to act without any limitation provided
by the moral standards. Such theory argues with the belief of Christians wherein God
provided humans with moral teachings which oblige them to follow. Rather than
following the moral actions that God and the church have taught, people try to make
their own beliefs of what is right and wrong thus disrupting the standards laid on us. In
addition, situation ethics promotes individualism thus people are given unlimited control
which affects others' will since people would act according to their self-interest. With the
theory of situation ethics, people can become selfish since there are no rules to restrain
themselves. Those who have raised criticisms against situation ethics believed that
rules should be implemented to control the thirst of one’s interest and wants. From my
point of view, I do believe that situation ethics allows individuals to act beyond their
limitations thus they act without any constraints. Based on my experiences, people who
are given too much freedom disrupt a harmonious environment thus I do agree with
those who think that situation ethics value too much on subjectivity and individualism.
The second argument of situation ethics is that such theory is considered to be vague
and inaccurate particularly with the thought in regards to love and situation. According
to situation ethics, the moral action to perform is the most loving and it accepts actions
as morally right yet certain actions cannot be justified. Arguments arose on how the
thought of choosing an action out of love is unhelpful. Criticisms reveal that the thought
of love between one person differs from the thought of the love of another. In line with
such a thought, people may not create a sound decision due to how the thought of love
varies from one person to another. Furthermore, humans are known to show more love
to their loved ones such as family over strangers thus creating bias decisions. If a
person is given the freedom to choose between a loved one and a stranger, one would
choose his/her loved ones regardless of whether such action may be right or not. From
my perspective, I agree with the thought provided by situation ethics. Even though love
varies, it does not deny the fact that most of us believe that love means doing the best
for ourselves and others. None of us would want to commit anything bad out of love. We
do good because we love those that we value.
In conclusion, there are criticisms against the theory of situation ethics from a
variety of individuals including Christians. As stated, there were two known criticisms of
such theory particularly of how it gives heavy importance in the thought of individualism
as well as subjectivity. Lastly, another main known argument of situation ethics was how
vague the definition of situation ethics thus not indicating a more in-depth basis for
people. Nevertheless, people's acts can both be evaluated as right or wrong with or
without situation ethics. People’s decisions will always vary as each one of us is
nurtured in different ways.

References:
Situation Ethics - OCR Religious Studies Philosophy and Ethics A level. (n.d.).

Rsrevision.Com. Retrieved November 26, 2021, from

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/situation_ethics/criticisms.htm