What is the point of multiple types of ethics?

[robvalue]

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.

Trying to live your life by one specific model is going to cause problems. There will always be exploitable loopholes, so to speak. I don't believe anyone really does this, even if they say they do. It would be some sort of mimic, like a psycopath, who actually required computerized instructions.

To me, the importance is in the discussion. Different systems have uses in different situations, or rather a sensible mix of lots of them. Knowing when to apply which principle, and when one "wins out" over another", is kind of a life journey. There are no right answers, but we can help each other think and grow.

[Angrboda]

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.

Trying to live your life by one specific model is going to cause problems. There will always be exploitable loopholes, so to speak. I don't believe anyone really does this, even if they say they do. It would be some sort of mimic, like a psycopath, who actually required computerized instructions.

To me, the importance is in the discussion. Different systems have uses in different situations, or rather a sensible mix of lots of them. Knowing when to apply which principle, and when one "wins out" over another", is kind of a life journey. There are no right answers, but we can help each other think and grow.

Yet, the judgment you use to decide when and if to use different systems itself forms a system. The question then becomes whether that greater mega system is more defensible than any of its parts.

[robvalue]

Indeed. There's really no answer, it's down to the individual in the end. I take every case on its merits, and I think everything through from every angle I can. I come up with a conclusion, and explain how I reached it, even if it's just to myself. Bouncing ideas off others can help you notice any potential flaws or new ways of looking at things.