Which moral theory do you abide by in life?

[r0ckyreed]

Which moral theory do you abide by in life? I know I have talked about this before, but I have to write a paper on my preferred moral theory.  I am struggling with picking one because I mostly believe that morality is relative, which I think would put me under utilitarianism.  

Utilitarian is a relativistic theory whereas Deontology seems to be an absolutist theory.  Deontology thinks that there are actions that are inherently right despite the consequences (Ex. Honesty is right, lying is wrong).

But Utilitarians see morality like a game of chess in that if you want to win, you have to think ahead of all possible moves and choose the ones that will promote the most goodness for the world (Ex. Dr. Strange sacrificing Iron Man's life).

Since there are no inherent right or wrong actions, it seems that morality is all about consequentialism in that the consequences of our actions matter! Not necessarily the action itself.  So for instance, if I had to lie to save a life, I would do it because a life is worth more than lying.  But it is hard to tell if a deontologist would lie in this case because if the Deontologist lies to save a life, then they are contradicting their maxim of "honesty."  But at the same time, if the deontologist tells the truth, which could end up with a person dying, it seems like they are supporting the maxim that "honesty is more valuable than a human life."  But what Deontologist would put a lie above a life?

In Utilitarianism, since reality is ultimately relativistic, there are no inherent right or wrong.  Right and wrong is a cultural innovation to survive.  Since morality is about survival and consequences, utilitarians try to maximize the goodness and minimize the evilness.  What most people get wrong about utilitarianism is that they think utilitarianism is a sociopathic philosophy where it is morally permissible to sacrifice someone's life to save more people.  But if you look at utilitarianism closely, since there are no intrinsic values and since death is an inevitable part of life, a utilitarian would not want to take a life on purpose because then that would mean that everyone can do that and since we don't want to live in a world full of murderers, murdering someone would be considered not the best way to maximize goodness.  

Either way you slice it, goodness itself is relative so if you are a deontologist who thinks goodness is a quality of an action, then who decides what actions are good or bad?  How do we define an action being good?  The good action is a culturally relative concept that is agreed upon by society (contractarianism).  

What do you all think?  Which moral theory do you all abide by in life?

 

Source: https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/gender/MoralTheories.html 

[DocWatts]

The three general schools of thought on ethics are deontology (strict codes of conduct based on Universal moral principles), Consequentialism (actions should be judged based on their consequences, of which Utilitarianism is an offshoot), and Virtue Ethics (in which moral behavior is an intuitive response that comes about through the cultivation of a virtuous character).

In my own view, any one of these on their own constitutes a partial and limited, albeit potentially useful, view of morality. My intuitive sense is that because Morality is always going to be contextual to some degree, it would perhaps make more sense to view each one of these as being more or less useful in certain scenarios. And that a more holistic view would include these as aspects into a larger meta-ethics that would find a way to integrate universal moral principles with moral relativism.

[The_Alchemist]

Golden rule.

I don't know what else you really need tbh.

[martins name]

Ground morals in will. You are right that morals are relative, there isn't objective good or bad. Even suffering isn't objectively bad. But if you stop you analysis there you have no grounds for construction. The solution is to say: yes, love isn't better than hate but I will act from love in spite of its arationality. This is transcending and including relativism.

Next question is what would you assert? Happiness for all. It is important to know that we all share the same consciousness and that you will reincarnate into everyone you hurt. Happiness is how our system expresses psychological and physiological health. Human happiness comes our chakras and how they manifest as the hierarchy of needs: safety, belonging, power, order, self-actualzition, harmony. Which corresponds to comfort, pleasure, joy, love, psychological integration/emotional purification and beauty/sublimation. Total Sublimation is non-dual enlightenment. Utilitarianism is how this is achieved.