Moral Beliefs - poll

I'm inclined to agree with this one, but there's something about that sentence which doesn't seem right.

 

...I am inclined to agree with the previous poster, however none of them really fit me...I just am...though rotten things have been done to me...I could never put anyone through something like it...therefore my morality is one the grounds of my abhorrent treatment....maybe do unto others, but that would not fit with my upbringing...its just despite my life...i am moral...i just am...(when it comes to most things...i dont think i have any morals about sex...you could nearly call me a sexual deviant, except I wont ever cheat...against my own moral code...again im wonkey...)

 

I voted divine command, however Natural Law is closer to what I believe.

also, the golden rule is a divine command

 

None of the ones listed... my pick is:

Virtue ethics, which emphasises the character of the moral agent, as set out by Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, and most Catholic moral theologians.

"Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. This contrasts with consequentialism, which holds that the consequences of a particular act form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action, and deontology, which derives rightness or wrongness from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes." (From Wikipedia).



@laofmoonster: could virtue ethics be added to the poll? (a mod's help might be needed).

 

what does it refer to "the character of the moral agent"? I'm afraid I did not understand it.

 

An example which might give a sense of how virtue ethics works: The motive for eating moderately is not principally because too much food is wrong, nor because eating is wrong, but because it is good for a person to live in a balance between excesses of too little and too much.

 

Existentialism - you must make your own meaning in life
Golden Rule - "do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself"
Utilitarianism - whatever causes maximum net happiness in the world is moral
Objectivism/strong libertarianism - as long as you don't use force on others, do what you wish


Existentialism: I agree with
Golden Rule: Eh. I think this generally works but there are people who are different from me and like different things. I'm an introvert and I might like to be left alone. The person I'm helping might be an extrovert and like interaction.
Utilitarianism: I agree to an extent. This is very close to majority rules, though.
Objectivism: I like this one a lot although I don't know much about it. Generally, I think people can do whatever the hell they want to as long as it isn't bothering me.

Edit: Hendoism...I'm not all too sure. You should seek happiness though, no doubt

 

Postscript: I like Virtue Ethics, because its focus is on good/right living - NOT on rules, or what is forbidden, wrong, etc.

 

I don't believe in anything that's a "Natural Law" like morality.
The only "Natural laws" are the unbreakable laws from Natural Philosophy (Science).
If you can break any of those laws, they're immediately disproven, and are thus, not laws.

 

Natural law doesn't go into a deep social morality, it's closer to an inherent sense of fairness.

Natural Philosophical laws are nothing more then observations of phenomena and truthfully not realy laws at all.

 

By what definition of Law are you using to disregard scientific laws as not truly laws?

I define a Law as something you cannot break, even if you tried.

 

Hmm, I kinda checked them all Does it mean I have no moral beliefs?

EDIT: On a second thought - that's moral relativism, damn it:doh:

 

I choose the following;

Divine Command,
Golden Rule,
Moral relativism,

In that order.

 

Golden Rule:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDmeMjsV35U"]YouTube- That Golden Rule[/ame]

 

Existentialism
Golden Rule
Moral Relativism

In that order.

 

I tried utilizing this particular system after reading Nicomachean Ethics. It's reliant on teleological reasoning, which argues that purpose should define function. The problem with that is purpose is inherently subjective. Only a few hundred years ago, people argued that the four humors, black bile, yellow bile, phlemg, and blood needed to be balanced for healthy, virtuous living based on their subjective knowledge at the time. Modern medicine has disproved that through the scientific process which favors metaphysical naturalism. Teleology has simply failed time and time again to explain the world because it is limited by the human knowledge at the time and thus is highly relative to the times in which it is used. As human knowledge expands, teleological explanations simply become closer to those derived from science.

 

Since I agree to all of them to a degree, I'll have to go with Moral Relativism or Nihilism.

 

It's truly hard for me to understand (in particular for an INFJ) how someone could not follow the golden rule. It's just, well, logical.