There are no rules in Situation Ethics.’ Assess this view. (15)

Due to the teleological nature of situation ethics, it could be said that Situation Ethics does not see the need for rules as each situation is judged on its own grounds. It is for this reason that the theory provides a clear alternative to Christian ethics that is still inline with Jesus’ teachings of “loving thy neighbour.” By having no rules, Situation Ethics does not face the problem of cultural relativism as it allows the moral agent to follow their instincts in performing the moving loving action. Nevertheless, especially from the presumption of personalism, we can see that rules are completely irrelevant to a situation ethicist as agape will always override a rule, and it will therefore be argued that due to the fact that we are not ‘singing from the same song sheet,’ the theory faces many problems. 
We can see that Fletcher would reject this statement in line with his rejection to antinomianism as he says, “it is literally unprincipled.” For Fletcher there are laws and he recognises that the rules are useful, shown in his belief to meet at the half waypoint between legalism and antinomianism; however Fletcher does suggest that legalistic ethics runs into problems when life’s complexities require additional laws. A situationist enters into the moral dilemma with the ethic, rules and principles of their community or traditions. They would always try to obey the natural moral law that murder should be prohibited, however are prepared to set aside such principles if love seems better served as in theory “love and justice are the same.” Therefore in complex alternatives of direct murder such as abortion, self-defence and war when love is best served by doing so Fletcher would suggest that “sometimes you’ve gotta put your principles to the side and do the right thing.” 
From a deontological stance, such as the one Kant adopts; the absence of rules in Situation Ethics makes it a completely incoherent ethical system. Kant would argue that when Fletcher states that “only the end justifies the means,’” human dignity and autonomy is being abused as each individual is not being treated as a rational self legislator and therefore the categorical imperative is being violated in the name of agape. A Christian, following Natural Law may suggest that the fallen nature of human beings means everyone requires ‘God’s grace’ in the form of laws, otherwise we would live in a sinful world on anarchy. Love cannot possibly be a law as it is too subjective; whose to say that Fletchers definition of love is correct?
In conclusion, Situation ethics may claim to recognise that rules are useful but we can see that in all cases they can be overridden by the principle of agape, so one can question whether there actually were rules in the first place? Fletcher claims it himself “there are no rules, none at all.”