ETHICAL THEORIES: WHICH ONE SUITS ME BEST?

This week in my university Ethics module, we learnt multiple ethical theories and philosophies. I honestly felt overwhelmed it was quite a lot to take in.

All these theories made me think about my personal ethics: how I think, what theories I think are right for me and which are not.

I realised that my ethics are a mix of different philosophies and theories.

I feel comfortable with relativist ethics as we all have different cultures, education, ideas and previous experiences. We all live different lives in different places and have had different experiences, so our moral principles may differ, but that does not mean they are better or worse. For example, sex before marriage is frowned upon and rejected in some countries and for some people, while in others it is normal and fully accepted. This is an example of personal and/or cultural differences that we cannot judge.

I also feel quite close to intuitionism as well. In my opinion, we, humans, are well enough trained and intelligent to have good intuitions. And if, after reflection, we realise that an intuition was wrong, the error is human. Plus, according to virtue ethics, it is with practice that we acquire virtue and become a good person. Indeed, we are the only ones responsible for our improvement, and we can always improve, it is never too late. For example, I thought I was being more sustainable by buying second-hand clothes on sites like Vinted when I wasn't because I was buying far too many that I didn't actually wear, and the packaging required was often made of plastic. But now I know that it was not a good thing and I don't make that mistake anymore.

However, in our society, I feel like we’re are often too subject to laws that do not always accord with our values and moral principles. The contractarian theories suggest that there is a kind of contract between the people and the government: the people elect a government that will impose laws on us. These contracts and agreements are put in place for the good of all, but they are not always fair. For example, in France, surrogate motherhood is an illegal practice. Whereas, in my opinion, it doesn't hurt anyone as long as both parties are in agreement. Plus, it helps homosexual couples to have children so it is also for the good of all. In this kind of case, I believe in existentialism, which states that Men are responsible for what they are and they are free to make their choices.

Moreover, I believe that it is by doing good that we will get good. I like the wording +=+, because I strongly believe that positive attracts positive. This is similar to the famous golden biblical phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, a quote illustrating deontological ethics. According to deontological ethics, the morality of an activity should be determined by whether it is right or wrong under a set of rules rather than the consequences of the action.

The deontological approach is opposed to the teleological approach. The teleological approach suggests that the result is more important than the way to get it. Indeed, I think that everyone has their own ways of doing things, but that these different ways are not always pure even if the finality is. For the deontological approach, I think that as long as the means are good and pure, the result is no longer important, because the good intentions were present. For a maths problem, the right result can be obtained randomly or by mistake, without having used the right practices. However, if the reasoning is good, one will get a good mark even if the result is wrong.

Voilà!

These theories are a bit confusing so I hope my words make sense!

I would love to hear your thoughts and your points of view regarding ethics.

Thank you for reading me :)

Julie