Atheism Stack Exchange Archive

Pros and cons of secular ethical theories?

• posted by: Tshepang on 2011-01-13
• tagged: philosophy, ethics
• score: 3

There’s a whole bunch of atheistic/secular ethical theories out there. Please provide the strengths and weaknesses of ones you have studied?

note:

• If you have studied more than one, please provide a separate answer for each so that it’s easy to vote –> in case someone agrees with your views on one theory, and disagrees with your view on another.
• Do provide references (EG: links to decent rebuttals).

• If you don’t feel confident that you really understand theory X, at least state why you have reservations, but make it clear (EG: “I don’t really understand this part, but it doesn’t make any sense because…“).

Answer 2189

• posted by: Donatelo on 2011-01-14
• score: 3

I don’t need a full blown theory or set of rules to follow. The golden rule treat others as you’d like to be treated yourself sums up almost everything one would need to know to live an ethical and moral life.

Answer 2220

• posted by: Bob Murphy on 2011-01-15
• score: 2

There are some very interesting Oxford University podcasts on philosophy that divide ethical theories into three large groups, pretty much like the OP’s Wikipedia reference. Here’s my very oversimplified, personal take on them.

Deontological Ethics

• What’s the right thing to do? It’s determined by a set of moral rules and duties.
• Example philosopher: Immanuel Kant
• Pros:
  1. It’s prescriptive: it tells you what to do.
  2. It’s convenient if you’re mentally lazy, because you just have to obey, not think.
• Cons:
  1. Per Gödel’s theorem, no matter what set of rules you come up with, there will be ethical situations they can’t decide.
  2. How do you know what set of rules to follow?
  3. Rigidly following rules can have very negative consequences.
  4. Poorly constructed sets of rules can be self-contradictory.
• Remarks:
  1. Most religious people are deontologists.
  2. Deontology says if you follow the rules and perform your duties, even if things turn out badly and innocent people are harmed, that’s okay. I think that’s morally bankrupt.

Consequential Ethics

• What’s the right thing to do? Whatever gives the best results.
• Example philosopher: David Hume
• Pros:
  1. It’s also prescriptive: it tells you what to do.
  2. It ignores motivations, so “doing the right thing for the wrong reason” is okay.
• Cons:
  1. How do you determine the best results?
  2. You have to think more about things than with a deontological system.
  3. It’s easy to justify some hideous things, including genocide, by defining “best results” the right way.
• Remarks:
  1. Utilitarianism is a subtype of consequential ethics.

Virtue Ethics

• What’s the right thing to do? What a virtuous person would do in the situation.
• Example philosopher: Aristotle
• Pros:
  1. It’s kind of a scientific approach to ethics: experiment, see what works and what doesn’t, and refine your notions of what virtue is based on your experience.
  2. It copes well with moral ambiguity.
• Cons:
  1. It’s not prescriptive at all! Simply subscribing to virtue ethics tells you nothing at all about how to behave ethically.
  2. It requires the most thought and self-examination.
  3. Because your notions of virtue are refined over time, you can’t be both virtuous and young.
• Remarks:
  1. Virtue ethics emphasizes developing your character, a concept I wish were more in vogue.

---

Like many idealistic young people, I was a deontologist in my late teens and twenties. Now that I’m in my fifties, I’m primarily a virtue ethicist.

But in new situations, I jump-start virtue ethics with ideas from both deontology and consequentialism, according to the following general hierarchy:

1. Defend the innocent.
2. Take care of the needs of people I love.
3. Keep my commitments and tell the truth.

Answer 2192

• posted by: Satanicpuppy on 2011-01-14
• score: 0

I think the most popular (unfortunately) is Utilitarianism.

Most ethical systems spend a lot of time trying to differentiate “good” from “bad”. Not Utilitarianism. Judging the problem to be insolvable, they decided instead to judge the moral worth of an action by looking at how many people it made happy or unhappy.

Obviously this is seriously problematic, ethically speaking, because moral actions often make people unhappy, and immoral actions often make people happy. But it’s so easy to quantify, it’s gained a lot of traction.

Answer 2258

• posted by: on 2011-01-17
• score: 0

I think that Kant’s deontological ethics is not a set of rules and prescriptions for the mentally lazy. Kant wants to find the basis for moral judgments – a basis for reasoning about what is the right thing to do when you need to make a moral decision. It’s true that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is prescriptive, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” But it doesn’t exactly tell you what to do in a particular situation. In a simple interpretation, it can mean asking yourself the question, “What if everybody did that?” Examples: Why should I bother to vote? My vote will not make a difference. What if nobody voted? I feel too lazy to pick up my fast food trash, so I’m leaving it on the grass in the park. What if everyone left their trash on the grass? We could debate whether or not the Categorical Imperative as Kant formulates it is a principle that should always be used to decide on the morality of doing something or not, but I think the application of the imperative not just for the mentally lazy. It is just as easy or difficult to apply as the Utilitarian principle that you should always choose the action that will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

---

All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.