What form of ethics do you follow?

I think I would fall under the category of naturalist however I’d have to look more into it.

I think I’m a Consequentialist but there are bits and pieces of each type that I find apply to me.

I believe in a set of ethics that maximizes the possibility of a good outcome for the largest number of people involved.

None of the above. Morality is an “emergent property” of being human—that is, it shows up when you start considering human beings in terms of their more ‘refined” qualities—the capacity for love, values, etc., and it shows up only when you see that humans are interconnected with their environment and with each other via intricate networks of cause and effect and interdependence.

In other words, it’s real but defies analysis—because analysis chops the whole up into little pieces, and loses the forest in search of the trees. You have to “stand back” a bit to see the whole, to see that our intricate interconnections are the basis of moral thinking: “no man is an island” is resonant with that understanding.

But that’s not the same as the ‘naturalist’ position you’ve cited above—I’m not saying this is scientifically provable. Science decomposes the whole and studies the pieces, but it stands on the sidelines for an issue like this: this is about the maturity and development of the whole person, and you have to deal with morality at that level unless you want to commit one of several common reductionist fallacies.

I would list all of the choices you’ve shown as one or another type of reductionism: they’re all dualistic, failing to recognize this wholeness that binds everything and everyone together. In failing to see that, they struggle to figure out how the pieces might be related, and come up with unsatisfactory solutions.

In summary, there’s two ways to look at values: analysis and synthesis. The former breaks them up and studies the parts, the latter generates the whole via integration. Reductionism results from analysis without adequate synthesis, and that’s where most moral theorizing goes wrong. In our thirst to find solid ground, we keep trying to make a whole staircase out of each plank. You can’t have a staircase until you let each plank take its place.

Put me under subjective naturalist as though things IMO do happen just naturally, my experiences will apply my own set of moral standards to what is naturally occurring around me! Cool question, chock full of info!

I look at ethics from two points of view, one looking at consequences and one looking at intentions.
I’m a subjectivist pragmatic utilitarian in the consequence department.
But a well-intentioned person who accidentally does more damage than good is still a good person in my books, like a selfish person who doesn’t care about other people but makes them happy for his personal gain is still a bastard. But with that said, I say a selfish person who does charity work just to get people to admire him is a better person than a selfish person who, say, only gathers money to get people’s admiration. Their intentions are still bad, but at least their selfishness makes the world a better place, which makes it forgiveable.
Generally, I think of happiness as good and unhappiness as bad – whoever experiences it. Consequence-based, this means what makes most people happy is best. Intention-based, this means that a desire to make people happy is good.

There are those who would argue that compassion too is selfish, being only a matter of how it makes you feel yourself. But I say this is a good kind of selfishness. I guess that blends the consequence/intention distinction a bit; intentions with agreeable consequences are good.

This may or may not be a consistent philosophy. I’m still working on it.

Here’s a joke nobody is going to get: I’m an ethical Optimality Theorist. The constraint [ALTRUISTIC-INTENTIONS] is ranked above [*UNHAPPINESS].

Its unbelievable how we try to shove people into one category or another. However, I am lucky enough not to fit those models.

relativist

Shit! an I thought there were only ethic ethics!.....

If I pick elements from all seven, does that make me a mentalivist?

Question…..
Can something wrong be ethical?

@Pazza
If you have a friend with really low self esteem, and you fill in a wrong answer on a homework assignment to make yourself look more fallible to cheer them up, that wrong answer would be ethical.

Other than such far-fetched ambiguity-exploiting semantics games, nuh uh.

@Fyrius
I meant like really wrong!~

If the answer is no, then ethics are just right and wrong, or ethical and unethical.
If the answer is yes, then my head will explode!

Example: lending money to someone who has none, and you have no idea if they can repay the origional loan never mind the interest to me, is unethical.

@Fyrius
Can a good person be unethical? lol

@Pazza
What exactly is your question?
If I’m not mistaken, “unethical” is synonymous with “wrong” in the moral sense.

A combo of 1, 2 and 7

@Fyrius
Is it unethical to ask annoying nonsensicle questions lol…..
Dude your runnig linguistic marathons around me, I shall now cease to annoy :-)
(trust me to harass a cunning linguist doh!)

Ps. Is unethical really synonymous with wrong or where you just refering to my comment?

@Pazza
It’s also wrong to misspell “nonsensical”. But not unethical.
Trust a linguistics guy to drive you nuts with this sort of stuff.

And I believe “unethical” is defined as “morally wrong”, yes.

@Fyrius
Unless the misspelling was on purpose and resulted in the death of a butterfly which caused an earthquake triggering a sunami wiping out millions of people…....

Just found this on http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/110060:

“An ethical person considers the context (motive, consequences, urgency) of his actions. A moral person acts in accordance with principles which he may never have examined. Both attempt to live rightly. I think of the first as wise and the second as good. I like best the person with an ethical morality.”

So ethics are intuitive and morals are taught? agree or disagree

…What form of ethics…

Right is right even if everyone says it’s wrong…
Thus
Wrong is wrong even if everyone says it’s right….

I agree with this anonymous quote from a blog contact: Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you are told – Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

@Pazza
I don’t know the difference between ethics and morality. I use those words interchangeably. I’m probably using them wrong.

@boffin
But if the whole world disagrees with what you think is right and wrong, you should make sure you have very good reasons to believe what you believe. Being stubborn for no good reason is bad. Unethical, even, I’d say.
Because there are philosophers out there who dedicate their lives to figuring out what’s right and wrong, and who have had to learn the reasoning of everyone before them. You have the right to disagree with them, but you’re not more qualified to judge than they are.

@Fyrius & @boffin
I think we need to go back to natural law to find the answers to the ‘is it right or wrong’ question, natural law is based on three priciples:

Never cause loss.
Never cause damage.
Never cause harm.

Breaking any of these is wrong. And everything else is ok.
I know there will always be grey areas, but if you look towards the start of the smudge, you will always find black and white.

@Pazza
How are those principles natural?
Judging from what nature itself is like, I’d be more inclined to say “natural law” is based on four principles:

Don’t get killed.
Eat.
Shag.
Protect your offspring.

Those are innate imperatives of pretty much any living thing that can do them. They’re also too short-sighted to be useful as a moral code for sentient beings.

I have a feeling I’m completely missing the point of what you were saying.

@Fyrius
When I say natural law I’m refering to common law, ie, England and America are common law jurisdictions, ancient civilisations (as far as I am aware) used to call the priciples its based on ‘natural law’ as civilised humans we instinctively know certain things are right and others are wrong, as long as you have empathy of course!

@Pazza
Yes, that makes more sense. Thank you.

I think I’m mostly Subjectivist, with a bit of naturalist and a bit of Deontologist thrown in as well.

I think ethical questions need to be considered on an individual basis because not everything is clear-cut black and white. Killing is said to be unethical but even then, there are grey areas. Self-defence, war, suicide, abortion, euthanasia and so on.

My own ethical code generally focusses on what will cause the least amount of harm.