Classifying ethics

Here's a quick question that I'm having some serious trouble with. I need a simple way to classify ethics. I did some research, and found a bunch of different ways. I don't know whether I just don't understand, or whether these theories are actually conflicting. Here's the classification that I'm leaning towards, based on "point of reference". I don't know if it is intended to be complete.

Self
-Hedonism
-Egoism

Group
-Utilitarianism (Universalistic Hedonism)

Natural Law
-Moral realism
-God(s), religion
-Universal laws and imperatives

Positive Law
-Contracts, agreements, and formal law

I believe that Objectivism would safely fall under the "self" category. I also saw classifications which were simply deontology, utilitiarianism, and ethical relativism. Another used deontology, utilitiarianism, and contract ethics. Simple is good... if it encompasses everything. No overlap is good too.

What I'm afraid of here is categories that aren't exactly parallel. For example, I don't want one classification to focus on differences of means vs. ends, and another to focus on a different ultimate value. You get the idea, I hope. Anyway, any help or insights would be of great benefit. Thanks.

Post 1

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 1:16am

The simplest way to classify ethics - selfism or otherism....... the rest are just variations....
(Edited by robert malcom on 11/13, 1:17am)

Post 2

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 5:24am

I think I'd classify based on answering the question "What is the primary goal one attempts to accomplish when following this ethical system?"

After answering that question for the various ethical systems, I'd look at systems that have the same answer to see how they differ.

I'm sure you have put more thought into this than me. Good luck.

Post 3

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 2:24pm

Robert, I would be fine with your classification for my own use. It doesn't help me in communicating with others, since it shows considerable bias. A utilitarian would no doubt say "Utilitarianism, and everything else." A positive law ethical system will in no way resemble (most) theist systems. The purpose of my classification is not to make a point, but to provide a framework. It should be more academic than it is argumentative.

I think I may be too slow for you Dean. Isn't the goal of every ethical system to determine what one should do? It is my understanding that each does this by prioritizing and making arguments about what is important.

I feel like I'm in over my head here. It would be much easier for me to simply argue for my system of ethics - kind of sad.

Post 4

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 3:15pm

Just as in classifying any other set of theories, there is no single, unique, correct answer to the question. It depends on what your goal is in making the subdivisions.

Are you attempting to achieve an historical perspective? (Divide by historical period.)

Are you attempting to classify by ultimate standard? If so, which - beneficiary? (self vs others is one possibility); highest value? (subdivisions could be numerous: religious object vs human life; maximal utility vs "pure" moral goal, etc)

One could differentiate by meta-ethical basis, by political or social consequences, by literary value, by degree of scientific support from biology, psychology, etc.

There's no end to correct classifications, nor any limit to invalid ones. Like any human concept (and, a fortiori, conceptual scheme) to be valid the divisions have to be objective, but not intrinsic (as your question suggests).

The method of division for ethics is similar to what one might employ for biology, psychology, history, or any other valid science revolving around living entities.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 11/13, 3:18pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 5:19pm

A few examples of what I mean:

Optimize Life on Earth
- Enjoyable life for self
- - short term (Hedonism)
- - short+long term (Objectivism, Buddhism)
- Enjoyable life for others
- - short term (Universalistic Hedonism)
- - short+long term (?)

Optimize Potential After Life
- Enjoyable afterlife per Bible (Judism, Christianity)
- Enjoyable afterlife per Koran (Islam)
- Re-Incarnation/Karma (Hinduism)

Other goals
- Anybody's own choice (Existentialism?)
- There is no goal (Post-Modernism)
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 11/13, 5:20pm)

Post 6

Friday, November 16, 2007 - 1:31pm