Page 1 of 1

In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:50 am
by The Voice of Time
I don't have a finite list of options and my mind's unusually bad at standard categorical thinking and memory, so I'll leave it to you to offer your simple, read again: simple, answer, that means contracted for the purpose of a simple read through all people who choose to answer. Should contain a word or a sentence giving a name or definition, and a short follow-up elaboration and narrowing.

Some standard (classic- as well as neo-) choices:

Kantianism (respect for authority, absolute rules)
Utilitarianism (name examples of measurable good things)
Hedonism (name examples of pleasures)
Virtue ethics (name virtues)
Stoicism (virtue ethics: "wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance", "Follow where reason leads", generally: reason before passion)
Religious ethics (name religion and version of religion and emphasizes because versions of religions emphasizes differently)
Justice as Fairness (John Rawl "A Theory of Justice")
Might is Right (survival of the strongest, submission of the weak by the strong)
Anarchism (freedom of association: no absolute or authoritarian or all-encompassing law or rules, the freedom to pursue passion and desires at own risk and will unhindered)

Re: In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:12 am
by Bill Wiltrack
.



Unionism
- I believe in the inherent good of Organized Labor.





.

Re: In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:05 am
by siochi
Well, ethical question can only be answered in the light of the notion of happiness. If you find happiness is serving others, then you would be inclined towards one view, whereas if you find happiness is self regulated activities, then you would be inclined towards the other view of ethics.

For more, refer to my post "on happiness"

Re: In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:48 pm
by henry quirk
Anarchistic Sociopathy, summed up as 'get the hell out of my way!'.

Re: In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:35 pm
by windy36
The Voice of Time wrote:I don't have a finite list of options and my mind's unusually bad at standard categorical thinking and memory, so I'll leave it to you to offer your simple, read again: simple, answer, that means contracted for the purpose of a simple read through all people who choose to answer. Should contain a word or a sentence giving a name or definition, and a short follow-up elaboration and narrowing.

Some standard (classic- as well as neo-) choices:

Kantianism (respect for authority, absolute rules)
Utilitarianism (name examples of measurable good things)
Hedonism (name examples of pleasures)
Virtue ethics (name virtues)
Stoicism (virtue ethics: "wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance", "Follow where reason leads", generally: reason before passion)
Religious ethics (name religion and version of religion and emphasizes because versions of religions emphasizes differently)
Justice as Fairness (John Rawl "A Theory of Justice")
Might is Right (survival of the strongest, submission of the weak by the strong)
Anarchism (freedom of association: no absolute or authoritarian or all-encompassing law or rules, the freedom to pursue passion and desires at own risk and will unhindered)

All the theories mentioned seem correct to only a certain degree, but all theories lack, and don't have the complete answer I am looking for.

Re: In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:55 pm
by Notvacka
Mine is a variation on traditional reciprocal ethics, similar to the Golden Rule; perhaps not very helpful, but clear and simple:

I chose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these cear and useful definitions:

good = what I want

evil = what I don't want

right = what others want

wrong = what others don't want

The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.

It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.

It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

Re: In what ethical-theoretical direction do you lean?

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:54 pm
by John K
The Voice of Time wrote:I don't have a finite list of options and my mind's unusually bad at standard categorical thinking and memory, so I'll leave it to you to offer your simple, read again: simple, answer, that means contracted for the purpose of a simple read through all people who choose to answer. Should contain a word or a sentence giving a name or definition, and a short follow-up elaboration and narrowing.

Some standard (classic- as well as neo-) choices:

Kantianism (respect for authority, absolute rules)
Utilitarianism (name examples of measurable good things)
Hedonism (name examples of pleasures)
Virtue ethics (name virtues)
Stoicism (virtue ethics: "wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance", "Follow where reason leads", generally: reason before passion)
Religious ethics (name religion and version of religion and emphasizes because versions of religions emphasizes differently)
Justice as Fairness (John Rawl "A Theory of Justice")
Might is Right (survival of the strongest, submission of the weak by the strong)
Anarchism (freedom of association: no absolute or authoritarian or all-encompassing law or rules, the freedom to pursue passion and desires at own risk and will unhindered)
Camus (the absurd)