Which Ethical Framework is Superior?

Ethical frameworks are incredibly diverse even internally, but for the purposes of this poll, consider which of the major ethical schools you ascribe to, and why.

Personally I believe that the superior ethical framework is ethical egoism. We can only be responsible for our actions, and we are most innately responsible for our own interests, so it just makes sense that our actions should be taken in our interests. Of course we shouldn't infringe on the negative rights of others, but as far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a positive right. For me, it comes down to the question of who I am responsible to. The easiest and plainest answer is myself.

There are also lots of issues I have with the other ethical frameworks, most notably utilitarianism. Probably the biggest disadvantage that utilitarianism has in comparison to ethical egoism is that it's asking you to undergo the same process of evaluation for all of your actions as you would in ethical egoism, but you don't get nearly as much back. Sure you can maybe get some satisfaction from "helping out the human race" or whatever, but if you use ethical egoism as your framework you can receive a lot more benefit. Give if you want to give, but don't put the emphasis of happiness on other people or humanity. You aren't other people, and you can't make them as happy as they can make themselves anyways.

Another major disadvantage to utilitarianism is that its application can create some ridiculous scenarios. Take a look at the following information to see what I mean:

Planet A - 100 units of population - 100 units of happiness
Planet B - 50 units of population - 150 units of happiness
Planet C - 150 units of population - 50 units of happiness

100 units of happiness = basic contentment

Utilitarianism creates a real problem in this situation because it treats these planets as being equal in their desirability. On planet A we have a contented population. On Planet B we see a surplus of happiness and a smaller population. On Planet C we see a deficit in happiness but a larger population. Because utilitarianism wants to produce the most happiness for the most people, Planet C is equally as desirable as Planet B. Clearly, this is not the case, as the people of Planet C are not even in a state of basic contentment, while those on Planet B have got much more happiness than basic contentment. There's a lot of situations like this that can arise if you put into practice a utilitarian ethical framework, which really turned me off of it.

Anyways, post your explanation as to why your ethical framework is superior, etc.

Tbh, I have no idea what any of those are. I see little reason to subscribe to some moral philosophy instead of simply making my own choices based on what I think is right. My philosophy is simple. If it doesn't hurt someone, then it isn't wrong. This doesn't extend to things that offend someone like language they deem inappropriate, as in that case and others like it, I would say they are hurting themselves by allowing themselves to be upset by something so trivial and harmless.

I googled it. Looks highly complicated. I'll stick with, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The only thing this doesn't apply to is rape.

Utilitarianism always troubles me; how is it even possible to know the true ramifications of your actions on society? Operating on blind cost-benefit analysis makes sense on a personal level because you are only affecting one entity, like in Ethical Egoism, but predicting how an action will affect an entire society is a monumental task. There is an incredibly (impossibly) large burden on every decision that a Utilitarian makes; and I think for the overwhelming majority of decisions, that burden outweighs the benefit that CBA can provide. From a Utilitarian perspective, Utilitarianism isn't very efficient at producing utility...

Divine command. There is plenty of evidence towards the existence of God. Like Noah's Ark that they maybe found.

I really hate to get into religious discussions, but seriously, why does everyone think the only reason humans can think is because of some old guy in the sky? I really don't like it when people make religion sound reasonable, just, or fair. For example:
Deuteronomy says: (not qoute but I could give verse if you asked) You can have slaves, as long as they aren't your race. Another religious statement: Shellfish are an abomination. I love crab and hate slavery. I'm not religious.

The existence of a deity is compatible with all of the ethical frameworks listed here; just because you believe in God doesn't make a DCT follower.

Quick question. How would a utilitarian respond to the criticism that according to its formula, it would be morally justifiable to burn suspected witches at the stake if it increased the general happiness of the rest of society? Perhaps it is a bit of a cheap attack since it leans on intuitive, non-philosophical morality which recoils at such actions. Maybe if you are a hardcore utilitarian you would accept that argument and even defend parallel actions. But I doubt that many people would do that, and as many people subscribe to utilitarianism, I am curious as to how that is typically addressed. Because even if you were to reject such a unsavory example as burning witches, it would seem that utilitarianism would have to entail the principle that subtracting from the happiness or well-being of a few is justified if it results in a higher total happiness for all subjects.

The thing about any ethical framework is that you have view it internally. It can only make sense to say that an ethical framework promotes wicked action if you're looking at it from another framework. Ethical egoism is also a subjective framework, so what one egoist considers to be ethical will almost certainly contradict with the majority of other egoists (what with the nature of the framework being based on personal interest). Ethical egoism doesn't claim (in any form I've seen it, anyways) to provide a correct set of behaviors for everyone. It exists in that a person will do what is beneficial for themselves. I've never heard of someone defending the framework as a universal theory (aside from Rand), and I think that it is only under such circumstances that the conflicts you bring up would take place.

Arguing for the adoption of EE by the majority of people is, I think, a really stupid idea for any egoist. Granting others the ability to justify their self interests is almost guaranteed to cause a conflict with your interests. Given the nature of ethical egoism, it is also unlikely that any egoist would be compelled to defend the actions of any other egoist.

This argument makes perfect sense if you attempt to universalize ethical egoism but, again, I've never seen anyone (sane) attempt that and I don't know why they would. The conflict of interest doesn't create a problem under the non-universalized form of ethical egoism.

We can't experience pleasure from the interests of others, only our own. The reason they matter more is that you can easily determine what you want, and find it nearly impossible to determine what others want. Also, since only they will experience pleasure from the fulfillment of their goals, it does you no good to seek those out. Unless you actually gain pleasure from helping others, in which case you have common interests and there is no conflict.

Of course I run across a similar version of this same problem when I look at Utilitarianism; why should I care about society more than myself? I only receive a secondary or tertiary benefit from helping society, but I can receive direct benefit by helping myself.

Doesn't this lead to the contradiction then, that it is against one's self-interest to be an ethical egoist (it is against my self-interest to follow my self-interest)? For, if you behave as an ethical egoist, that will compel others to react to your egoism with their own parallel egoism. As you cannot possibly compete as a single individual against the rest of humanity acting as self-interested individuals, the only way to preserve my own interests is to actively promote the interests of others as well as my own.

The only way ethical egoism makes sense is if you posit that others acting purely in their own self-interest promotes my self-interest, and that others acting altruistically to promote other interests besides their own harms my self-interest.

Most proponents (everyone I've ever seen or heard of except Rand) of ethical egoism don't advocate it as a universal framework. It's not about saying that everyone should do what is in their self-interest, it's saying that pursuing your or my self interests is an ethical action. I can't speak for how other people should behave ethically (though there are a large portion of egoists who posit that it should be focused on serving them).

I'm also unfamiliar with this theories/frameworks?... but I believe that we are AWAYS doing what is in our best interest, and all social related questions can be logically solved by the analisys of that statement...

(hoping my 'not so good english' will not compromise the true meaning of what I'm trying to say =P)

This is not meant to be a personal attack, but don't you like seeing people happy? I would argue that you, or any other person except for maybe sociopaths, would do things to make your family (just an example) happy. I would say seeing people happy makes a person happy.
As for determining what other people want, how about asking them?

@ Fafe: But there are selfless people (disagree?) and therefore not all people do what is in their best interest.

I think I'll have to disagree...
Someone will only do something to make another person happy if he conclude it's his best interest to make the other person happy.
some would feel better for helping others, and some woudn't care about anyone else, but none of them are selfless.

Of course, you can argue that the person who feels good helping the others will do more his 'community', and a sociopath (for example) won't do any good to the 'community'... there ARE different values, and the different conclusions when measuring those values results in different social/economic/political ideals/positions/theories... but it all comes from the first statement.
(still hoping I could express myself good enough =) )

@ Fafe. I've done things to make other people happy which have left me being very unhappy. And it wasn't really in my best interest. And I'd like to think I'm not the only one who has ever acted against his interests to be nice.

How about the police? Police Officers sure aren't in it for the money. They want to help people even at the risk of dying which if you think about it is ALWAYS against your interest. (excluding suicidal cops)

So this is my theory:
Everyone who doesn't believe in an afterlife and is willing to die for a cause is selfless.


But i guess one can always argue that one decides what the outcome is that one likes and act accordingly. But the outcome that you want is the one you think is morally right. This depends upon the ethics you choose. Which again depend on the outcomes that you like. With this kind of thinking I would end up in a never ending circle.

Can someone break this loop for me? Stalin perhaps?

Police officers are there to oppress, not help. Protecting someone is not part of a police officer's duty in US law. They are far too important to waste stopping acts of violence. Then who will stop people from making their own decisions about their lives? Their job is to punish those who are not "normal", which is all you really have the right to be. Want to make you own decisions about what substances to put in your own body or who to marry? Don't worry, thats already been taken care of for you, and there is an army of people (police) there to enforce it upon you.