What sort of ethics do you subscribe to?

[ciphergoth]

Does the right thing to do depend only on the consequences, or are some acts inherently right or wrong no matter what likely consequences follow?

From Wikipedia:

Deontological ethics or deontology (Greek: δέον (deon) meaning 'obligation' or 'duty') is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action.

Virtue theory is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking.

Which of these best describes your position?

[Poll #1225625]

Comments

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

I actually think categorising ethical systems is of limited use in actually making the myriad decisions we all have to make every day in dealing with so-called life. Any "system" other than just always choosing wnat is best for you works for me - fsvo works.

I also think the dichotomies between these systems break down very easily. Take for example the "is it OK to send yopur children to public school2 issue we were discussing recently. My objections to this are political, thus I suppose deontological. You, IIRC, were defending this using consequentialism, but I dont agree that there are no harmful consequences resulting from sending your children to public school (for example, it helps perpetuate the public school system).

The biggest difficulty I have with consequentialism is that it is actually impossible to predict the consequences of most actions with any precision.. The biggest difficulty I have with deontologicalism is that it is absolutist - e.g. adultery is wrong because god says, homosexuality is wrong because it is the product of decadent Western capitalism.

I realise that this entire comment, and indeed your poll, grossly simplify complex philosophical questions.

Tell you what though, I cant see any virtue in "virtue ethics" ! Is that Nietzsche??

[keirf.livejournal.com]

It does seem odd that "virtuous character" is presented as something that can exist without intention or consequence.

[simont]

Last time I had a discussion about virtue ethics, I said much the same thing: specifically, I think, I said that virtue ethics would consider helping someone in need to be good because it was an act of charity and consider the fact that a real person ended up better off to be basically irrelevant to the character of the act. The local virtue ethicist said that was a slur: the fact that a real person ended up better off was entirely relevant to the character of the act, since it was that which made it an act of charity.

At that point I ceased to have a clear idea of what was virtue ethics and what was not.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Another problem I have with consequentialism is what basis one uses for deciding whether an outcome is "good" or otherwise.

[hamsterine.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. Also, even if we do agree on the standards, it can be harder to agree what "value" of good or bad we should place on the many different consequences that will stem from any one action.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Checked it on Wiki now - hmmmmm - nah, it is what we philosophers call "bollocks" :)

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Virtue ethics was Aristotle's theory.

[I accidentally left this comment anonymously the first time. Sorry!]

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Sorry about bitty nature of my comments - am tired! Got confused in my first comment. Was going to say re the school example that part of my position I suppose is deontological, as I consider that action wrong for left wing political reasons, but a large part of my position relates to the consequences (as I perceive them from my left wing position) of the public school system. An example of how the dichotomy breaks down very easily.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

IAWTC for the most part; I was thinking that the whole business of creating taxonomies of ethics is problematic in itself, but didn't want to derail the straightforward question asked!

I see what you mean about 'virtue ethics', but I think it rather depends on who's defining them; I'm not sure they have to be unpleasant or oppressive. I'm not sure I understand it correctly, but since the Wikipedia article says;

A system of virtue theory is only intelligible if it is teleological: that is, if it includes an account of the purpose (telos) of human life, or in popular language, the meaning of life. Obviously, strong claims about the purpose of human life, or of what the good life for human beings is, will be highly controversial.

that might seem to me to put Nietzsche somewhat out of the picture. And if we think that an action helps with the overall goal of human purpose (whatever that is), and is taken in accordance with the virtue of reason, then within the system of virtue ethics, it would be good? It does seem to me to be somewhat related to deontological ethics, if one sees virtues as analogous to rules, because both need to be defined and known in advance. But would an action which seems consequentialist be 'virtuous' if it sprang from character rather than end? I'm not sure how we'd define this; would Sidney Carton's "far, far better thing" be an expression of it, for example?

I don't quite know. It's a bit too vague and amorphous to get a handle on it, and that's why I don't like it so much myself, but I don't think it must perforce be negative.