What Moral/Ethical Philosophy Do You Follow?

[krazy kaju]

So, I was just wondering, who here adheres to what moral theories?

Personally, I'm a utilitarian.

Any other utilitarians? Any hedonists? Deontologists? etc.?

[de Silentio]

I try my hardest to follow the categorical imperative, in both forms. So I suppose you can call me a deontologist. However, this is hard to do and I cannot say that I adhere to it all the time. (also, it gets me in trouble with my wife a lot!)

Since I do not follow the categorical imperative all the time (although (I think) I do most of the time), I am not sure I can say that I follow it at all. I think that one cannot call themselves a follower of any moral framework if they do not follow it all of the time.

Why utilitarianism? I once thought that utilitarianism was the best framework to follow, but I stumbled off that path when I realized that I cannot accurately measure pleasure and pain. I found that it wasn't until after I committed an act that I could even come close to measuring the pleasures and pains of a consequence. Guilt has its way of bringing to light variables that are not seen until after a decision is made.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

Any other utilitarians? Any hedonists? Deontologists? etc.?

I am an ethical capitalist. I am a deontologist (moral obligation) when i'm in church, a utilitarian (whatever works) when i'm on a date, and a hedonist (whatever feels good) the rest of the time. Just kidding folks

My moral actions/decisions happen on a conscious and unconscious level. (Is there a psychologist in the house?) If morality is what I judge to be good or bad/right or wrong then everything I do stems from these values. There is also a scale of importance I place on these values. I view that an "insignifacant" lie would be less wrong than murder (individual subjectivism). so then some of my moral behavior is not much more than knee-jerk reaction, while other moral values/actions are laboriously contemplated. Jurisprudence attempts to evolve the law to fit the circumstances and our ever-changing value systems(moral relativism). Cercumstances are relative because morality shifts in varying cercumstances. Servival situations and other drastic situations can radically shift our "normal" values; rationalizing what would normally be morally irrational.

I side with moral zeitgeists, that morality developed/is developing along with primates to serve them/us with skills that aid our intrapersonal/social/environmental functionality.

Dualistically, there would be no moral without imoral; so we can never abolish imorality. My view is that religious law, common law, pier pressure and whatever we come up with in the future are all attempts to persuade us to shift our values and enable us to function/interact more harmoniously and as a result, more efficiently.

[Fido]

I am a moralist, but I am not sure I would call moralism a philosophy. I sure wouldn't call moral behavior normative. Morality cannot be equated to a set of rules. Rather, it is a feeling, and if you don't have the feeling the behavior it demands will always seem strange.

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Why utilitarianism? I once thought that utilitarianism was the best framework to follow, but I stumbled off that path when I realized that I cannot accurately measure pleasure and pain. I found that it wasn't until after I committed an act that I could even come close to measuring the pleasures and pains of a consequence. Guilt has its way of bringing to light variables that are not seen until after a decision is made.

Well, I believe that utilitarianism is the most natural...

You are right that it is hard to measure the outcome of pleasure, pain, and 'utility' beforehand, but I do believe that utilitarianism is the most functional, practical, and natural moral theory, simply because it tries to do good "for the clan," and not just for oneself (hedonism), and it also doesn't try to protect the individual (deontologism) even if it'd be better for society to not protect that individual.

I truly feel that utilitarianism is also the evolutionary answer to morals: throughout history, it was sometimes useful to sacrifice yourself or others to save your clan, and to let their genes (which were partly your genes) pass on.

Also, if you look at modern political ideologies, all of them, at least the realistic ones, are in essence utilitarian. What is best for the majority? Socialists, communists, libertarians, capitalists, anarchists, and fanatics always believe that their way is the best for the majority, even if a minority has to suffer (i.e. in socialism the rich 'suffer' since they no longer can be as rich while in capitalism the poor suffer due to social and economic inequality).

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

Well, I believe that utilitarianism is the most natural...

You are right that it is hard to measure the outcome of pleasure, pain, and 'utility' beforehand, but I do believe that utilitarianism is the most functional, practical, and natural moral theory, simply because it tries to do good "for the clan," and not just for oneself (hedonism), and it also doesn't try to protect the individual (deontologism) even if it'd be better for society to not protect that individual.

I truly feel that utilitarianism is also the evolutionary answer to morals: throughout history, it was sometimes useful to sacrifice yourself or others to save your clan, and to let their genes (which were partly your genes) pass on.

Also, if you look at modern political ideologies, all of them, at least the realistic ones, are in essence utilitarian. What is best for the majority? Socialists, communists, libertarians, capitalists, anarchists, and fanatics always believe that their way is the best for the majority, even if a minority has to suffer (i.e. in socialism the rich 'suffer' since they no longer can be as rich while in capitalism the poor suffer due to social and economic inequality).

So the minority should not suffer? Is that because they can afford to have others suffer for them? Everyone should suffer alike and every form of idealism ensures that all should suffer. If it is not equal then it is certain.

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Fido

So the minority should not suffer? Is that because they can afford to have others suffer for them? Everyone should suffer alike and every form of idealism ensures that all should suffer. If it is not equal then it is certain.

Quite the contrary, what I was saying is that the majority should not suffer, even if it is at the cost of the minority.

So, for example, socialists argue that the upper classes (the minority) should suffer so that the middle and lower classes (the majority) do not. Of course, they do not want the upper classes to actually 'suffer', but the idea is to not have them be as 'happy' as they would be with all their wealth, but to distribute that wealth among the poor.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

Quite the contrary, what I was saying is that the majority should not suffer, even if it is at the cost of the minority.

So, for example, socialists argue that the upper classes (the minority) should suffer so that the middle and lower classes (the majority) do not. Of course, they do not want the upper classes to actually 'suffer', but the idea is to not have them be as 'happy' as they would be with all their wealth, but to distribute that wealth among the poor.

None sense. Everybody suffers, and there is nothing in ideology to prevent that. The thing is, that societies are all one boat. Each is a closed system, and this is sort of an oxymoron because all systems are closed; but if suffering is not general, then it is more extreme at one end so it can be less on another. It is not that this is not fair that offends me, but that it is destructive of the society. Sooner or later division means weakness that invites defeat from outside or revolution from within.

I don't think you grasp socialism in the least. Honors and wealth will always flow in society. If a society is to function as it should, without an expiration date, then the society should encourage innovation, and invention with rewards, but it should constantly work to achieve justice and make wealth general. Wealth does not have to become hereditary where it will become divisive. Rather, society should tax wealth while the owners are alive and redistribute wealth upon the death of its owner. Socialism is the government of resources and industry. Since these govern us if we do not govern them, we must control them as an essential factor in the quality of our environment.

[krazy kaju]

Originally Posted by Fido

None sense. Everybody suffers, and there is nothing in ideology to prevent that. The thing is, that societies are all one boat. Each is a closed system, and this is sort of an oxymoron because all systems are closed; but if suffering is not general, then it is more extreme at one end so it can be less on another. It is not that this is not fair that offends me, but that it is destructive of the society. Sooner or later division means weakness that invites defeat from outside or revolution from within.

*sighs*

Do you even know anything about ethics?

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory any action which increases the utility/happiness/pleasure of the majority of society is an ethical action. An action which reduces the utility/happiness/pleasure of the majority is unethical.

Almost all political systems claim to fight for the majority. As already stated, socialists want to increase the utility of the poor and lower middle class by giving higher wages to workers, providing better housing, etc. Libertarians want to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes, as well as "the individual," by increasing the economic and social rights of the individual. I could provide an example for almost every political ideology that is not based on fanatical religion.

I don't think you grasp socialism in the least. Honors and wealth will always flow in society. If a society is to function as it should, without an expiration date, then the society should encourage innovation, and invention with rewards, but it should constantly work to achieve justice and make wealth general. Wealth does not have to become hereditary where it will become divisive. Rather, society should tax wealth while the owners are alive and redistribute wealth upon the death of its owner. Socialism is the government of resources and industry. Since these govern us if we do not govern them, we must control them as an essential factor in the quality of our environment.

I honestly don't care what "you think" about my knowledge of socialism or of how society should be organized.

And considering that my family lived in a socialistic nation, I do believe I 'grasp' what it is. I've studied socialist, communist, and anarchist thought quite extensively for "the average Joe." I'm more than well acquainted with left wing theories.

I was simply using socialism as an example of a utilitarian ideology.

[Didymos Thomas]

Just to add some clarification: libertarianism has absolutely no interest in the well being of one class of people as compared to another. They do not seek "to increase the utility of the middle and upper classes". Libertarianism is concerned with the individual's rights, utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest happiness of all.

Under utilitarianism, it would be justified to ignore the rights of one individual, to make happier two individuals. Completely contrary to libertarianism.