There are 5 choices, 4 votes for hitchhiker42's debate

Utilitarian, Kantian or Virtue Ethics?

Which is the best way to determine whether something is right or wrong? Should we try and do what would create the most net amount of happiness in the world, accept that acts are only ever intrinsically right or wrong and logic can tell us which, or should we simply try to cultivate virtues by acting with balance?

Perhaps you have a completely different theory of what is right and wrong, or perhaps you believe that there is no such thing. One word, however, although I am myself Christian and welcome any theological perspectives on morality, please consider that a strong case for each of these perspectives can be found within many religions and they were all at least added to, if not developed by, Christians themselves. I have nothing against people explaining their views thoroughly, but I'd prefer it if there weren't several different strands explaining why all three theories are obsolete for being secular.


  • Virtue Ethics

    I'm completely devoted to virtue ethics, I think it shows exactly why ancient greek thought is among the best that the world has ever seen and probably ever will see. I think it provides the best possible way to live a happy and fulfilled life, while fulfilling the lives of others. It takes into account personal relationships, balance and, perhaps best of all, it insists that a person's desires, emotions reasons for acting in a particular way are just as, if not more important than the actual action.

    Voted for by hitchhiker42.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • happiness

    If everyone did what made made them happy then, presumably, everyone would be happy. Does this therefore mean that most are doing stuff that makes them unhappy? It certainly seems that way. If most want to be unhappy there doesn't seem to be much one can do about it. I advocate not doing what most do. It's called personal morality. Do what makes YOU happy. If this makes the "most" unhappy, too bad. They were already unhappy anyway. They, due to their unhappiness, just don't like happy people. Well, f..k them. So, whats the problem?

    Voted for by grant.
    View 17 comments
  • :

  • Christian Ethics Require Utilitarian, Kantian or Arete Ethics?

    Ethical systems are rather complex, and one needs to determine what would be apropriate for a particular environment perhaps, as well as what the goal of the ethical applications would be. It is far better for a Christian to take up the New Testament and follow the word of God, with whatever is good in the realm of applied ethical systems I should think rather than to spend too much time making judgements about what is wright and wrong on a purely secular basis.

    ***

    Because modern Christians haven't got a priesthood of believers ecclesiastical structure, but an Old testament era hierarchic priesthood instead, they aren't engaged enough with ethical applications of Christian activities.

    ***

    The Hindu I believe have to ways of actualizing religious virtuous, and it is possible to compare that with some ethical applications of western living because each exist in a human social environment...one method of devotion is through contemplation, and the other is in action. Christian living ethically in the word of God would comprise a sort of combination of the two, without much separation or dualism.

    ***

    Consequentialism is another way of determining ethical values, yet meaningful though it is in precluding nominal sorts of ethical apologetics from replacing actions that work (consider the Hurricane Katrina disaster responses and the failure to build a mnorail for emergency evac from Mobile to Baton Rouge etc, and the administration's failures to utilize sufficient environmental synthesis and alternate fuel and transport deisgns in the 60 billion dollar federal spending spree in response) it will be ultimately secular, and thus at best an ancillary ethical guideline set quite secondary to eschatological consequentialism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

    Voted for by GaryCGibson.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Kant

    I like Kant because his theories are totally impractical in terms of his categorical imperative. It allows the sado-masochistic of the world to do whatever they want under the aegis of rational thought. Luckily, these are usually the self destructive types anyway.

    In as far as ethics, I don't really believe that any of them will be proven both metaphysically and politically. It reminds me of Edward Bernays speaking about truth and propaganda. If truth is only ever this shakey among a collective, than ethics (that is a behavior that coincides with human behavior to a point of civilized understanding) is reduced to Machiavellian politicking, seeing as metaphysics lie in the hands of a handful of but a few individuals and how politics lies in statecraft.

    Kant in his useless ethics (and I say this with the utmost respect in that I think no ethics are really that useful) unifies everything. He unifies self-interest, self-sacrifice, public discourse, the political landscape, consequentialism, Machiavellism, Realpolitik, Utilitarianism and everything. Nietzsche understood that nothing can really come from it, but if we have to take something seriously of this nature Kant seems the best bet.

    Voted for by Auxiliar.
    View 13 comments
  • :

  • Personal ethics

    I believe we should judge ethical behavior by its consequences. I think it is more important to behave in ways that reduce suffering rather than increase happiness.

    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →