I am usually allergic to deontology. I am never convinced the rules are the 'correct' ones or that they should be universal. Good rules of thumb, sure. But 'thou shalt not', never.

Maybe it is an ethical rule that there are no hard and fast ethical rules.

That's a good description above.

I'm allergic to utilitarianism—whatever branch that falls under. I think it should only be used to resolve moral dilemmas and nothing else. I view deontology as necessary for unifying groups. And virtue ethics as the ultimate goal for individuals.

I have no idea if what I just said makes sense to others the way it does in my head. I'm new to these terms so I'm basing most of it on your description.

(March 1, 2022 at 8:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I'm allergic to utilitarianism—whatever branch that falls under. I think it should only be used to resolve moral dilemmas and nothing else.

But isn't that what all the theories do? Solve dilemmas?

"OMG! Moral dilemma! What shall I do?"

1. Calculate the best end state and try to get there. (utilitarianism)
2. Do your duty. (deontology)
3. What would [moral exemplar] do?-- or what did my moral training teach me


IMO, they all have their merits. Utilitarianism is the easiest to argue and fashion into laws.

Deontology has worked best for me personally.

Virtue ethics emphasizes training people to do the right thing. And that's indispensable. Medical doctors are specifically trained: do this.... never do THAT.... never ever EVER do X. That sort of thing is super important.

Quote:I view deontology as necessary for unifying groups.

Ha! Your deontology smacks of consequentialism! Maybe you are a utilitarian after all.... [being snarky]

But seriously, you seem to care about the "end state".... "unified groups" .... as some kind of ultimate good. A staunch deontologist would say, "do your duty, even if it means less unified groups as a result."

In the end, like you, I like multiple theories. Utilitarianism being a perennial favorite in my case.

(March 1, 2022 at 8:40 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: But isn't that what all the theories do? Solve dilemmas?

Hmm I'm not sure. In my observation dilemmas only emerge from within rather than without. For example, when two deontological rules are clashing. I would resolve the clash with utilitarianism.

Can you give an example of a dilemma that isn't self-produced by an ethical system?

dupe

(March 1, 2022 at 7:47 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I am usually allergic to deontology. I am never convinced the rules are the 'correct' ones or that they should be universal. Good rules of thumb, sure. But 'thou shalt not', never.

Lets look at the ball pit at mcdonalds.  They say no needles in the ballpit, and we certainly feel that no needles in the ball pit...is...correct...as a matter of fact.

But, the question for you, tell me why that's opinion?

Quote:Maybe it is an ethical rule that there are no hard and fast ethical rules.

 
That would be a deontology.

Desire Utilitarianism works as best for me as anything else. I question though that there is any system that is perfect. Perhaps there is no possible system that is perfect. This is something we may have to just slog along as best we can. Hopefully, we get closer and closer to objectively perfect ethics as we go, if there is such a thing.

It's an unrepresentative demand we make when we insist that any one tool apply equivalently through the full range of potential moral dilemma.

Virtue ethics explains that we prefer one set of things over overs. Consequentialism provides a full list of responsibility for a given act, and deontology are the rules we live by to prevent situations arising where we have to think too hard about the other two - because we're no good at it. It takes all of them to make a functional moral system - and even then - the moral system fails. It's not up to the task presented by the human animal, or to the circumstances presented by exclusively suboptimal decision fields.

(March 1, 2022 at 11:36 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(March 1, 2022 at 7:47 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I am usually allergic to deontology. I am never convinced the rules are the 'correct' ones or that they should be universal. Good rules of thumb, sure. But 'thou shalt not', never.

Lets look at the ball pit at mcdonalds.  They say no needles in the ballpit, and we certainly feel that no needles in the ball pit...is...correct...as a matter of fact.

But, the question for you, tell me why that's opinion?

No, it is not a matter of fact. it is what is needed to achieve a goal (no injuries in the ball pit). That thi sis a goal is a matter of opinion (admittedly a common one).

Quote:

Quote:Maybe it is an ethical rule that there are no hard and fast ethical rules.

 
That would be a deontology.

And one that is inherently self-limiting. But, i would also say it is a rule of thumb as well.

"Every rule has an exception, including this one"

Ethics has to do with goals. Once we establish goals (human prosperity, for example), we can deduce what course of actions are required to achieve those goals.

But the goals themselves are not matters of fact.

(March 2, 2022 at 9:53 am)polymath257 Wrote: That thi sis a goal is a matter of opinion (admittedly a common one).

Here -- as always -- your view is shaped by your conviction that only science gives knowledge. It's the way you define what a fact is that rules out ethical facts.

It might be worthwhile considering that either other kinds of facts (non-scientific ones) are possible, or that some of what you call opinion has a force that is fully as strong as a scientific fact.

"It is bad to chop the arms off of healthy babies for fun" is, if not a fact, every bit as strong as one. To deny it is more insane than denying that the earth is round.