The Gaming Den

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03) created with QuizFarm.com
Hedonism 80%
Existentialism 65%
Utilitarianism 45%
Justice (Fairness) 45%
Nihilism 20%
Strong Egoism 15%
Kantianism 10%
Apathy 0%
Divine Command 0%

Fwib wrote: 60% Apathy - Is that a lot?

cthulhu wrote:I'm not even particularly sure what some of them are.

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility[clarify] in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance with happiness or pleasure as ultimate importance.

It can be described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number", though the 'greatest number' part gives rise to the problematic mere addition paradox. Utilitarianism can thus be characterized as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to ethics.

Utilitarianism can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which disregards the consequences of performing an act, when determining its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism. Adherents of these opposing views have extensively criticized the utilitarian view, though utilitarians have been similarly critical of other schools of ethical thought.

In general use of the term utilitarian often refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. However, philosophical utilitarianism is much broader than this, for example some approaches to utilitarianism consider non-human animals in addition to people.

Kant's ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotional feelings or end goals. All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle; it is this that the moral worth of an action is judged according to. Kant's ethics are founded on his view of rationality as the ultimate good and his belief that all people are fundamentally rational beings. This led to the most important part of Kant's ethics, the formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which acts as a test for whether a maxim is good or bad.

Simply put, the test is that one must universalize the maxim (imagine that all people acted in this way) and then see if it would still be possible to perform the maxim in the world. For instance, holding the maxim kill anyone who annoys you and applying it universally would result in a world which would soon be devoid of people and without anyone left to kill. Thus holding this maxim is irrational as it ends up being impossible to hold it.

Universalizing a maxim leads to it being valid, or to one of two contradictions — a contradiction in conception (where the maxim, when universalized, is no longer a viable means to the end) or a contradiction in will (where the will of a person contradicts what the universalization of the maxim implies). The first type leads to a "perfect duty", and the second leads to an "imperfect duty."

Kant's ethics focus then only on the maxim that underlies actions and judges these to be good or bad solely on how they conform to reason. Kant showed that many of our common sense views of what is good or bad conforms to his system but denied that any action performed for reasons other than rational actions can be good (if I save someone who is drowning simply because I felt a great pity for them, the act was not a morally good one). Kant also denied that the consequences of an act in any way contribute to the moral worth of that act, his reasoning being (highly simplified for brevity) that the physical world is outside our full control and thus we cannot be held accountable for the events that occur in it.

The Formulation Rule of Kantianism:

1. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time obey will be the universal moral rule.

2. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end.

Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest. It is important to distinguish this from psychological egoism, the claim that people can only act in their own interest. Psychological egoism is a claim about how people do act, not a claim about how they ought to act. Ethical egoism is distinct from rational egoism (which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest) and individualism, neither of which posit that acting in one's self-interest is necessary to act in a morally right way.

Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an ethical obligation to help or serve others. Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to disregard the well-being of others, nor does it require that a moral agent refrains from considering the well-being of others in moral deliberation. What is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental to, beneficial to, or neutral in its effect on others. It allows for the possibility of either as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying self-interest of the agent.

Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for people's support of libertarianism or anarchism (though anarchists, except anarcho-capitalists, believe that people do have a duty to help others) - political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

Three different formulations of ethical egoism have been identified: individual, personal and universal. An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits him;[1] A personal ethical egoist, that he should act in his own self-interest, but makes no claims about what anyone else ought to do, while universal ethical egoists argue that everyone should act in ways that are in their own interest.[2]

A philosophy holding that one should be honest, just, benevolent etc., because those virtues serve one's self-interest is egoistic; one holding that one should practice those virtues for reasons other than self-interest is not egoistic at all.