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

[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.