Situational Love & a Postmodern Ethic
People make decisions everyday about how they are going to act, what they are going to say, and what they are going to do. But how do people make these decisions? What guides people to choose to act one way over another? One thing that helps people make decisions is their ethics. In this paper, I will outline my personal communication ethic, as inspired by the writings of Joseph Fletcher and Martha Cooper. After summarizing their research, I will propose my own code of ethics.
Joseph Fletcher proposes a situational ethic with a guiding universal principle of love (Fletcher, 1966). He believes that no act is intrinsically good or evil, but instead "good and evil are extrinsic to the action" (Fletcher, 1966, p. 59). For example, one could not say that murder is intrinsically evil, because there are circumstances when murder would be acceptable, as in self-defense. The act of killing someone is not evil in and of itself, instead the evil of the act is found in the situation.
The overarching guiding principle of his situational ethic is agape love, which is defined as "Christian love" or a "giving love" that is "non-reciprocal" and "neighbor-regarding" (Fletcher, 1966, p. 79). Christian love is distinguished from friendship love (Phila) and romantic love (Eros), because it is not an emotion, but a "will, disposition, it is an attitude, not a feeling" (Fletcher, 1966, p. 79). Although written laws aim to promote good, Fletcher points out that sometimes laws force you to act contrary to love (Fletcher, 1966). He does not want people to "be hypnotized by some abstract law" and follow without thinking, but to take time to analyze the gray areas of morality that the law cannot account for (Fletcher, 1966, p. 65). He says:
"Having set out laws based on ethical absolutes and universals, love compels them to make more and more rules with which to break the rules. This is the ridiculous result when law ethics (as in the Christian tradition) tries to keep control, yet want to pay homage to love" (Fletcher, 1996, p. 67).

Lawmakers are caught in a difficult situation because of the constant fluctuation between asserting universals and making exceptions to those rules. Fletcher does not believe that laws are useless, but acknowledges that there is a major problem with them because they do not distinguish between situations. Consequently, the situationist should move beyond the law and hold "that whatever is the most loving thing in the situation is the right and good thing" (Fletcher, 1966, p. 65). Again, the type of love he refers to is the agape or Christian love.
In some ways, leaving moral judgments to the situationist is risky because "situation ethics aim to widen freedom" (Fletcher, 1966, p. 84). However, with that freedom comes the responsibility to be "as well-informed and reasonable as [one] is capable of being," (Fletcher, 1966, p. 10). Another important tool for the situationist is the "ethical maxims of his [or her] community and its heritage" (Fletcher, 1966, p.26). A person should know the tradition and heritage of his/her community, but be willing to "compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so" (Fletcher, 1966, p. 26). In summary, the situationist should seek to be reasonable and well informed about the heritage of the community, before making a decision.
Although she wrote many years after Fletcher, Martha Cooper deals with similar problems of absolutes in postmodern thinking (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002). Postmoderninty "poses a challenge because the very grounds for judgment seems to have split apart beneath those who would judge" (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 300). Instead of accepting universal truths, postmodernity "is the recognition of multiple perspectives," which poses a problem for the issue of judgment (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 313). Coopers solution is to "decenter" or "suspend" judgment through an ethic of care and an ethic of resistance (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 302). She describes the ethic of discourse, which encourages questioning and deliberation and leads to judgment, but says, "making judgments is not the only route to ethical behavior in a postmodern world" (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 313). The ethic of care encourages responding, empathizing with another's story, and identifying with that person, all without judging (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002). Furthermore, the ethic of resistance encourages affirmation, empowerment, and tolerance through ritual celebration (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002).
Postmodernity implies a "value for perspectives other than our own, especially perspectives that are marginalized" (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 314). Although valuing all perspectives can cause problems when trying to determine right and wrong, it is important to recognize that there are many viewpoints that are not heard. Her three ethics are all ways one can respond to the call of the Other. She believes that every person has "an ethical, or moral impulse…that occurs when the voice of an Other who is experiencing the repressive effects of power is heard" (Cooper as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 302-303). Through her work, Cooper attempts to recuperate ground for judgment in the difficult world of postmodernism, through her three part ethic.
Taking into account the writings of Cooper and Fletcher, I propose my own code of ethics. I will point out the strengths and weaknesses of their ethics in an attempt to define my own. I think Fletcher's situation ethic is important because it allows room for all the gray areas in morality. He acknowledges that there are situations in which laws cannot give you guidance. In those circumstances, you must turn to your own judgment of the situation and figure out what is most loving. I agree with most of what Fletcher says, but see two weaknesses. First, I think he puts too much value on peoples' own ability to determine what is most loving in a situation. Although he says they should arm themselves with as much knowledge as they can, I can see many areas where the test of "agape" love would not be clear. Furthermore, people have vastly different ideas of what it means to show loving concern. The second weakness I see is that he assumes a Christian perspective. Although this is helpful for finding examples of agape love (as in Christ), he leaves many people out of his ethic.
For Cooper, I like that the postmodern ethic values multiple perspectives. It is important for people to recognize where they get their ideas. I also think her ethic of care is important because "questioning every background assumption is a luxury rarely afforded oppressed people" (Cooper, as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p 305). The ethic of care requires "little in the way of elite resources, but involving specific skills" (Cooper, as excerpted in Johannesen, 2002, p. 306) so that even oppressed people can practice it. I also like her emphasis on hearing the call of the "other," because it places importance on going outside yourself to help another person and does not leave ethics at the personal, individual level. As far as the issue of relativism in postmodernism, I feel Cooper bends over backwards to find ways around judgment. I would like to propose another way of looking at relativism that does not nullify judgment. Stanley Fish wrote an article entitled Condemnation without Absolutes, that addresses the issue of absolute moralities within the emerging postmodern belief that "maintains that there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival interpretations of an event is the true on" (Fish, 2003, p. A19). When asked if the events of September 11 meant an end to postmodern relativism, he responded by first defining relativism and then explaining why it is not ending (Fish, 2003). Relativism does not mean that you "are unable to prefer your own convictions to that of your adversary" because he says, "our convictions are by definition preferred" (Fish, 2001). He defines relativism as:
"The practice of putting yourself in your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why someone else might want to wear them" (Fish, 2001, p.1).

He believes this type of relativism is just another name for "serious thought" and should continue. The important distinction that Fish makes is that just because you recognize others' perspectives does not mean you have to do away with your own convictions in judgments. I prefer Fish's response to relativism, rather than Cooper's, who tries to find ways around judging.

My Code of Ethics
Having examined Fletcher, Cooper, and Fish, I would like to propose my own ethic, using the language of the narrative (Fisher, as cited in Griffin, 1997). Instead of looking at ethics as situational, the situations should be viewed as occurring within a story, not as an isolated event. In reality, the way people act and react in situations results from many things, including their view of the world. The narrative, or story about the world, will determine what the most loving thing is to do in a situation. For example, by the worldview of Americans, we see the issue of female genital mutilation as horrific and undeniably wrong. However, within the narrative of the communities that practice it, the overarching belief may be that women need to be controlled. Therefore, their practices seem justified and right within their story of the world. With that in mind, here are the six points of my ethical code.

· Come to every situation with an open mind, making sure you are aware of your own beliefs and narrative of the world. You choose to be part of a community (i.e. religious, professional, etc.) and often this community helps define your view of the world. Make sure you understand your own dispositions.
· You should analyze each situation to figure out what is the most loving thing to do. Your definition of love will depend upon your own beliefs and your own narrative. It is vitally important that you consult other wise people in your community to gain insight from the past.
· Seek multiple perspectives (from people of different narratives) on situations or issues in order to gain more insight into your own beliefs.
· Be sensitive to the call of the Other and follow your own moral impulse to respond to that person in the best way you know how.
· Remember the ethic of care is another way to respond to situations if you do not feel that discourse is appropriate.
· Treat people with love, valuing them as people, even if you do not agree with them.

In conclusion, I used the writings of Fletcher and Cooper to help me form my personal (not professional) ethical code. In combining a situational ethic with a postmodern value for multiple perspectives, as well as a recognition of moral relativism, I feel that I have come up with a more complete way to view the world.

References
Cooper, M. (2002). Decentering Judgment: Toward a Postmodern Communication Ethic. In R. Johannesen, Ethics in Human Communication (pp.299-314). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc.

Fletcher, J. (1966). Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Fletcher, J. & Wassmer, T. (1970). Hello, Lovers! An Introduction to Situation Ethics. Washington/Cleveland: Corpus Books.

Fish, S. (2001, October 21). Condemnation without Absolutes. The New York Times, pp. A19.
Griffin, E. (1997). An introduction to communication theory. New York: Mc Graw Hill.