What is the point of multiple types of ethics?

[Macoleco]

Recently I have been reading a little about many types of ethics, such as Kantian Ethics, Nicomachean ethics, Utilitarism, etc. And it made me wonder what is the purpose of these types of ethics, many which contradict each other.

Is it actually possible to create an ethics model which encompasses all of the diversity of human nature and its circunstances? Many of these ethic models say that the end is happiness or that man should always follow a duty regardless of the case. I feel all of these ideas cannot take into account the full complexity of human nature and the environment that sorrounds it. Like it will always fall short.

[pablo628]

Good luck getting everyone to conform to a single set.

[Rev. Rye]

Is it actually possible to create an ethics model which encompasses all of the diversity of human nature and its circunstances?

That's why we have all these methods. They're heuristics that try to create a model that encompasses everything they know about humans and their circumstances. Unfortunately, they invariably fail to encompass everything.

[Belacqua]

I feel all of these ideas cannot take into account the full complexity of human nature and the environment that sorrounds it. Like it will always fall short.

We need all the different systems because each of them falls short. 

Moral problems in life are seldom solvable in the strict way that math problems are solvable. Understanding and applying different approaches helps us think about the issues with more depth.

[The Valkyrie]

I thought there was only one Ethics?

Somewhere in England?

[vulcanlogician]

Recently I have been reading a little about many types of ethics,  such as Kantian Ethics, Nicomachean ethics, Utilitarism, etc. And it made me wonder what is the purpose of these types of ethics, many which contradict each other.

Is it actually possible to create an ethics model which encompasses all of the diversity of human nature and its circunstances? Many of these ethic models say that the end is happiness or that man should always follow a duty regardless of the case. I feel all of these ideas cannot take into account the full complexity of human nature and the environment that sorrounds it. Like it will always fall short.

The thing is, each of the theories says something important (perhaps indispensable) about ethics. You may want to take a look at ethical pluralism. You don't HAVE to go with just one. And the thing is, by themselves, each of the monistic theories suffer serious deficits. There is no easy answer to your OP, Macoleco. It's a millstone that has been grinding away in the ears of ethicists for centuries.

The important thing, I think, is that you've decided to investigate matters for yourself... rather than just letting people tell you what is right or wrong and then accepting it.

[brewer]

The point, it's an easy way to figure out exactly who to abuse and shun. 

That's right, run away.

[vulcanlogician]

The point, it's an easy way to figure out exactly who to abuse and shun. 

That's right, run away.

Are you high tonight or what?

[Angrboda]

A millstone in their ears? Sounds painful.

[vulcanlogician]

A millstone in their ears?  Sounds painful.

Running a marathon invariably involves pain. But, if you are a runner in a marathon, your goal is to cross the finish line, no? You'll work through any pain... or you suck at marathons.

Committed philosophers are going to run the marathon, using every ounce of their intellectual energy to get closer to that finish line. I guess the real problem is: nobody knows where the finish line even is. Socrates handed us a baton, and we simply took it and started running.

Pain is an illusion. Only the finish line is real. And even if the finish line is not real, it is far less illusory than pain.

---

I'm high, btw. Unlike wyzas, I have no problem just saying it.