The Compatibility Of Three Approachs To Ethics

[Edwardo Piet]

Nothing to add there, don't you think?

I have an absence of evidence of anything to add but no evidence of absence of anything to add.

[abaris]

I have an absence of evidence of anything to add but no evidence of absence of anything to add.

What I am saying is that you simply have to be human in the natural sense of the word to be ethical. Human as in being able to feel compassion instead of being a sociopath. Not philosophy required. Maybe I'm in the mniority, but I'm one of the persons who hold the position of no philosophy required at all if you are a sentient being. And I don't even confine that to humans.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have an absence of evidence of anything to add but no evidence of absence of anything to add.

What I am saying is that you simply have to be human in the natural sense of the word to be ethical. Human as in being able to feel compassion instead of being a sociopath. Not philosophy required. Maybe I'm in the mniority, but I'm one of the persons who hold the position of no philosophy required at all if you are a sentient being. And I don't even confine that to humans.

I agree with you. But I don't think all ethical people are equally ethical.

If I gave more money to charity I would be more ethical. Whether that's in the future after selfishly saving and earning more money and working on myself-- or whether that's sooner rather than later despite it impacting on my finances more than is perhaps wise. Whatever in the long run overall provides more money to charity. Probably the former.

Of course we don't have to give to charity to be decent and ethical people. And I currently do not.

And of course it doesn't apply to all charities. And many but not all charities are good and some perhaps are better than others but it depends what we care to care for.

[abaris]

If I gave more money to charity I would be more ethical.

No, you wouldn't. If I could afford it, which I can't, I would give money to all charities I feel drawn to. As it is, I give 50 cents or one Euro to Punks sitting in their streets with their dogs. Why, you may ask. Because their dogs are usually bettter off and cared for than themselves. They give the impression of being decent human beings caring for another being more than they care for themselves.

As opposed to the Eastern European crowds coming here to beg in the streets. Sometimes disabled, sometimes very low on the food chain. But there's a reason why I don't give to them. They're poor people, no doubt about that.l They're desperately i need, no doubt about that either. But if I give to them, they don't profit. Their masters shipping them here do. And that's people I certainly don't want to support. I handed food to them, but never money.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm one of the persons who hold the position of no philosophy required at all if you are a sentient being.

I don't think it's required but I think it perhaps can possibly potentially help us refine our compassionate decisions made on the outside to more accurately represent our compassionate decisions made on the inside.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, you wouldn't.

To me I would.

If I could afford it, which I can't, I would give money to all charities I feel drawn to.

Same.

As it is, I give 50 cents or one Euro to Punks sitting in their streets with their dogs. Why, you may ask. Because their dogs are usually bettter off and cared for than themselves. They give the impression of being decent human beings caring for another being more than they care for themselves.

I think that that is very ethical of you.

As opposed to the Eastern European crowds coming here to beg in the streets. Sometimes disabled, sometimes very low on the food chain. But there's a reason why I don't give to them. They're poor people, no doubt about that.l They're desperately i need, no doubt about that either. But if I give to them, they don't profit. Their masters shipping them here do. And that's people I certainly don't want to support. I handed food to them, but never money.

I think that that is very ethical of you, too.

[abaris]

I don't think it's required but I think it perhaps can possibly potentially help us refine our compassionate decisions made on the outside to more accurately represent our compassionate decisions made on the inside.

I for one don't think so. But I'm one of the lucky ones where parents always told me to look out for other people. I may have some sympathy for some philosophies. But I don't need them to have a compass. I don't even care for people that much, since I'm pretty much a loner. But I certainly endorse the idea of people being entitled to a decent life.

[Edwardo Piet]

I for one don't think so. But I'm one of the lucky ones where parents always told me to look out for other people.

I don't think anyone's compassion on the outside can ever perfectly represent the compassion they have on the inside.

I may have some sympathy for some philosophies.

Same.

But I don't need them to have a compass.

Same.

I don't even care for people that much,

Different.

since I'm pretty much a loner.

Different.

But I certainly endorse the idea of people being entitled to a decent life.

Same.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

First, I’d like to clarify that my intent is to brainstorm the ideas in the op and not to impose a particular ethical system onto anyone.

That being said, thank you for creating this thread, Alasdair Ham. The topics of non-consequentialist ethics, consequentialist ethics, and virtue ethics are pretty interesting.  Overall, a synthesis of the three approaches could produce a more effective ethical system than the application of a particular approach by itself, provided that the established ethical system encourages testing, is open to scrutiny and questioning, and is adaptable to human progress and development.
 
The focus of non-consequentialist ethics (deontology) is to make ethical choices because it is the morally right and dutiful thing to do. In particular, Jacques R. Thiroux suggested that there are five main ethical principles that are common throughout the world’s major cultures: valuing human life; honesty and truth-telling; justice or fairness; individual freedom; goodness or rightness (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015, pp: 155-156). Thus, these principles provide a possible basis for this ethical system. However, what happens when people find themselves in situations where adhering to one of the above principles could produce chaotic results (i.e. telling the truth results in someone's death)?  Hence, given particular circumstances, is doing the right thing actually the wrong thing?  As a result, consequentialist ethics can help resolve this dilemma.
 
As per the op, consequentialism can be separated into two categories: rule consequentialism and act consequentialism.  The former gives people contextual guidelines, which enable them to make sound ethical decisions in a prompt, efficient manner; however, guidelines are not full proof.  As a result, act consequentialism encourages individuals to analyze a particular situation, account for its unique circumstances, and make the appropriate judgement call.  Consequently, this approach is problematic if the situation demands an expedient ethical decision.  Therefore, a synthesis of act and rule consequentialism seems like a practical approach (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2015, pp: 37-39).  However, does having established ethical duties and guidelines prevent people from blindly applying them or using them as a means to pursue their own ends and ignore the greater good? Virtue ethics offers a way of addressing this problem.

Ultimately, an ethical system is what people make of it.  As a result, virtue ethics stresses that people need to develop inner character and morally cultivate themselves, which helps them internalize the ethical principles and guidelines of their society.  Thus, being virtuous gives meaning to an ethical system and raises it beyond a means of blind adherence to societal norms.  However, solely applying this approach presents the following problem: how do we define virtuous (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2009, pp: 62-63, 70)? If a particular image of virtue is painted by society, then are people ultimately being deprived of the ability to be virtuous in their own unique way? Hence, it is clear that a virtue ethics approach would benefit from established rules and guidelines.

Overall, IMO, synthesizing the three approaches could result in the creation of an effective ethical system: it would have a basis for ethical duties and rightness; it would have contextual guidelines and allow people to make appropriate judgment calls under unique circumstances; it would cultivate inner character and virtue.  However,  it is imperative that the established ethical system encourages testing, is open to scrutiny and questioning, and can be modified accordingly as humanity continues to progress in their development.  IMO, these elements promote a mindset of improvement and growth, which is fundamental to the success of this particular ethical system.

References

Thiroux, Jacques P. & Krasemann, Keith W.  Ethics: Theory and Practice (11th ed).  Boston: Pearson, 2015.