Best Theory of Ethics?

[public hermit]

What do you think is the best (most effective?) approach to ethics? There are generally three schools of normative ethical theories (taken from IEP article linked below):

1. Virtue Theories: Stress the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (e.g. Aristotle).

2. Duty Theories: Base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation (e.g. Kant).

3. Consequentialist Theories: Correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences (e.g. Bentham)

You may have another theory or approach in mind, or some combination. What is the best theory and why? What is wrong with the ones you didn't choose?

Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you think is the best (most effective?) approach to ethics? There are generally three schools of normative ethical theories (taken from IEP article linked below):

1. Virtue Theories: Stress the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (e.g. Aristotle).

2. Duty Theories: Base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation (e.g. Kant).

3. Consequentialist Theories: Correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences (e.g. Bentham)

You may have another theory or approach in mind, or some combination. What is the best theory and why? What is wrong with the ones you didn't choose?

Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Personally, I think that a Christian ethic is the best, and it requires one to weigh the consequences of being virtuous in a world that thinks we have a little bit of duty in our moral salad. (pa-tum!)

 

[public hermit]

I think the three categories are helpful for thinking about ethics, but life is messy and the application of each may depend on context. Personally, I tend towards virtue theories and, specifically, the practice of love. For me, the virtue of love seeks to do what is beneficial for self and others. I think of it as a virtue because it is a practice of developing a kind of habit in how one treats one's self and others. It is not dependant on how I feel, but what I do. And, here's where it gets messy, I do consider it a duty, given my Christian faith. I also think it is important to consider outcomes, but that is not the sole consideration, especially since the consideration of outcomes can become pretty sketchy business.

 

[public hermit]

Hahaha, we already have one vote for "Ethics is for loosers."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you think is the best (most effective?) approach to ethics? There are generally three schools of normative ethical theories (taken from IEP article linked below):

1. Virtue Theories: Stress the importance of developing good habits of character, such as benevolence (e.g. Aristotle).

2. Duty Theories: Base morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation (e.g. Kant).

3. Consequentialist Theories: Correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's consequences (e.g. Bentham)

You may have another theory or approach in mind, or some combination. What is the best theory and why? What is wrong with the ones you didn't choose?

Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

.... but really, I think there is merit in all of these ethical pathways, and they all come to play to some extent in a Christian (virtuous) kind of "Ethic of Care," as opposed to just implementing either a strict form of duty based or consequentalist approach to ethics.

 

[pleinmont]

I think that ethics that have nothing to do with religion are best.

 

[public hermit]

Personally, I think that a Christian ethic is the best, and it requires one to weigh the consequences of being virtuous in a world that thinks we have a little bit of duty in our moral salad. (pa-tum!)

I do think there's something to be said for it being a mixed bag. The three categories are a bit wooden, I think.

 

[public hermit]

I think that ethics that have nothing to do with religion are best.

Fair enough. Do you have a preference? You'll notice religion isn't one of the categories, so don't be shy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Duty takes over when virtue fails, therefore duty ethics is the best from a pragmatic viewpoint. Agape contains the elements of will, judgment, propriety, and duty. Duty brings up the rear when all other virtues fail. It's the moral firewall of the Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do think there's something to be said for it being a mixed bag. The three categories are a bit wooden, I think.

Yes, it is a mixed bag. However, I'm still working on the degree to which I can, or should, incorporate something like Fletcher's 'Situational Ethics.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Duty takes over when virtue fails, therefore duty ethics is the best from a pragmatic viewpoint. Agape contains the elements of will, judgment, propriety, and duty. Duty brings up the rear when all other virtues fail. It's the moral firewall of the Christian.

Yeah, but people have to actually 'care' that some form or degree or priority of duty, to someone, is a moral prescription. Otherwise, it's just one person's estimation as to what he/she thinks should work ethically in society over and against what someone else thinks should work.

 

[public hermit]

Yes, it is a mixed bag. However, I'm still working on the degree to which I can, or should, incorporate something like Fletcher's 'Situational Ethics.'

I'm going to dig out my copy and read it, finally. By the way, the discussion between you and @FireDragon76 inspired this thread. So, credit where credit is due.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm going to dig out my copy and read it, finally. By the way, the discussion between you and @FireDragon76 inspired this thread. So, credit where credit is due.

Credit is due me? You're such a sweetheart, PH! And I can say that because the situation at the moment is that it's Valentine's Day month and love is in the air, bro!

 

[public hermit]

I am also curious what other possibilities are out there. Emotivism? Maybe that's more a subject of meta-ethics, than normative ethics? Is there a pragmatic theory of ethics?

 

[public hermit]

Credit is due me? You're such a sweetheart, PH! And I can say that because the situation at the moment is that it's Valentine's Day month and love is in the air, bro!

Oh my, I'm blushing!

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes, it is a mixed bag. However, I'm still working on the degree to which I can, or should, incorporate something like Fletcher's 'Situational Ethics.'

Reminds me of an old book I don't have a copy of, but was interesting in how it was arguing about gay being justified in Christianity: title was A Time For Consent, I believe, and it utilized situational ethics

 

[FireDragon76]

@2PhiloVoid... you've inspired me to try to go research Carrol Gilligan. I heard about her years ago in my psychology classes but we didn't delve into alot of her thought. Also, years ago I did some reading on gender studies and queer theory and encountered discussions about the ethics of care. But I'd like to go straight to the source.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am also curious what other possibilities are out there. Emotivism? Maybe that's more a subject of meta-ethics, than normative ethics? Is there a pragmatic theory of ethics?

Emotivism? Well, maybe we would should just put out there one of the latest and greatest of emotivist positions and let folks decide for themselves. Hence, here is a taste of the overall (and mistaken) philosophy of the great A.J. Ayer:

Alfred Jules Ayer (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[FireDragon76]

Emotivism? Well, maybe would should just put out there one of the latest and greatest of emotivist positions and let folks decide for themselves. Hence, here is a taste of the overall (and mistaken) philosophy of the great A.J. Ayer:

Alfred Jules Ayer (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Wasn't Hume the grand-daddy of emotivism?

 

[public hermit]

Emotivism? Well, maybe would should just put out there one of the latest and greatest of emotivist positions and let folks decide for themselves. Hence, here is a taste of the overall (and mistaken) philosophy of the great A.J. Ayer:

Alfred Jules Ayer (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'll check it out. I've always appreciated his essay "Freedom and Necessity."