I find traditionalists and those who choose their actions based on divine revelation to be intellectually lazy.

Morals should be about the consequences of breaking rules on those who are effected. This does require
some amount of empathy.

Utilitarianism sucks.I reject it totally.

People should do the right thing for the right reasons, what counts is the intention and not the result, the end does not justify the means.

I think Kant is right, the only ethic we can follow is our own ethic also because it is obviuosly influenced by the ethic of the society.

They both serve a role. Decency rules for exemple are somewhat required for smooth functionning of society, but are almost purely deontological. Consequentialist is oft useful when faced with new situations, or with changing situations.

It also almost seems to me as if most people go through life cobbling an aggregate of deontological and consequentialist ethics together into a healthy ethical behavior. So maybe we need both to function as individuals and as a society.

Maybe these ethical theories are lenses to look at when thinking about ethical question...but the specific lens one chooses to use is not the entire story...a bit reminiscent of the "Blind men and the Elephant" [link] .

VE.

Pure deontological ethics is pointless and arbitrary, while pure consequentialism is impractical.

Deontology is fucking stupid. The point of ethics is about harmonious human relations, not sticking to principles for god knows why. We form principles and rules because of their consequences. We don't follow them because they're principles; they're principles because they have good outcomes from following them.

Neither, yuck.

I'm more inclined towards consequentialism, but ultimately any code of ethics or moral laws require assumptions that cannot be externally justified. We might be able to scientifically determine what sorts of behaviours maximise the health and happiness of the great numbers of people while minimising suffering, but ultimately you'd have to justify why maximum health and happiness is desirable. Which might lead to to have to justify why pain is bad, why emotional distress needs to be avoided, it just keeps going on. I'm personally at peace with accepting the obvious, unsubstantiated answers to those questions myself.

I'm face with them whenever I'm asked, as a non-believer, where my morals come from. The sorts of believers who ask me that don't seem to consider the same questions with regard to their own morality. They come down from god, fine. But why should god's views on morality be considered the best? Because he created the universe? How do we know that creating the universe qualifies anyone to dictate perfect moral laws, and even if it does, how do we know that they are perfect at all? How do we know that this entity can create perfect moral law for us and then did, as opposed to that being within his capabilities and simply not exercised. Because he loves us and has our best interests in mind? How do we know this? Apparently he told us, but why do we believe him? Is he trustworthy? How can we know he is trustworthy? When he says he can be trusted, can we trust him when he says that?

It just goes on and on just as before. Eventually you do have to make some assumptions, and the quality of assumptions determine the quality of what follows. But I don't think this sort of philosophy is very useful. It reminds me of the one about the philosopher wondering whether anything can truly be known, and whether he therefore, as he sits before his evening meal, can know that he needs to eat. And one of two things will happen: either he will come to accept that while he can't know it for certain, he will accept the premise for sake of argument and eat his (now cold) steak, or else starve to death and no longer bother us with his bullshit.*

Which is the point: we can worry about where our morality comes from and how we justify it all we like. Meanwhile in the real world billions of people are suffering in billions of different ways. If you care about that I don't really give a damn why you do, and the people who are suffering would certainly fail to give two shits. the only question that matters is: what are you going to do about it?


_{*I guess consequentialism wins out on this one}

I'm not sure you understand religious ethics, if you think you're not supposed to consider the consequences.

A mic of both, I'd say.

The latter. Codes and rules are ultimately worthless if you don't know why you're following them in first place.

deontological. Utalitarianism justifies genocide, so ill stick to my kantian ethics thanks.