Now I realize for many people it is some combination of these, as reality is not so neatly divided into categories and there is going to be inevitable overlap. But which principle is closest to your own guiding principle if you are faced with an ethical dilemma?
I’m a Pirsigian.
There’s an elegant answer out there that makes everything sort of “click into place”. it resonates with rightness all around while managing not to conflict with any other perspective in any fundamental way… (the motivations from those other vantage points if not necessarily the conclusions reached by folks occupying them, that is). It has “utilitarian” tendencies, but is not a compromise. More of a comprise. It has “categorial imperative” tendences but cannot be derived from rule-following.
I consider myself an existentialist Buddhist. Life is inherently meaningless and really rather ridiculous, but we are at full liberty to construct our own meanings based on what makes us feel most alive. The meaning I have chosen is Buddhism, which jibes well with my understanding of natural phenomena (we suffer, the world and our experiences in it are a chain of cause and effect, therefore always changing and never separate.) I am particularly interested in the question of suffering and how we construct meaning from that. Lately I’ve been sustained by ideas from Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy, the idea that we create different meaning for our lives in every second rather than an overarching meaning for life as a whole.
I would add to that one moral imperative, which is to love. The act, not the feeling.
I act in my own best interest though I figure that my interest thought isn’t always served by what is best for me personally at that particular time.
I don’t really care about people who I’ve never met and not going to meet. I care more about the friends of my friends then I do some random person that I encounter because their happiness makes my friends happy which in turn makes me happy while I’ll never experience anything from the joy of a random person.
I will act purely in the interest of the greater good if it doesn’t cost me anything but even that could be said to be a benefit for me because my life becomes easier when dealing with people who are in better moods. In that way I see a lot of things as in my best interests because even if there is not tangible benefit there is a chance that it will circle in an unexpected way.
I chose Situational: every situation is different, no one principle can guide behavior in all circumstances because really, that’s how I think nearly everybody operates. It means: “I reserve the right to do what I feel is right at any given time, and to rationalize ex post facto why I felt it was right to act that way. I also reserve the right to decide I should have done something differently and resolve to act that way in the future, which may or may not cause me to agonize about how I should have done it that way the first time.”
I’m sure there are underlying global principles like the Golden/Silver Rule, An It Harm None and the like at work under the surface, but it’s not like I’ve consciously premeditated my actions to be consistent with them, or spent time training myself ahead of time to be completely consistent with a set of moral or ethical rules (except in a professional context).
Of course there are times when even as I do something I am questioning whether this is really the “right” thing to do, and I certainly have done or stopped myself from doing actions because I felt they were required or would be wrong, but that’s more a matter of execution and not of principle.
I am fascinated by the topic of morality. I read a really interesting book a while back called Moral Minds by Marc Hauser. Hauser uses research in psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, economics, etc. to formulate a hypothesis about the origin of individual morality. What he concludes is that morality is an innate mechanism that develops along with the rest of a child’s brain based on the environment in which he or she lives. Like language, children can learn a range of ‘‘moral dialects’’ and they can even learn new moralities, but ultimately their view of right and wrong is shaped by the context of their lives. Generally speaking, human cultures tend to share the same moral principles, it’s just that different cultures usually place these principles in different orders of priority.
One of the most interesting of his findings is that apparently morality exists beyond emotion or reason. It appears to be entirely instinctual, with the rationalization and emotional response occurring *after *the moral judgment has been made.
Whenever I’m deadlocked with someone in a debate, I try to remember that.
I believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong. In my personal life I act like most other liberals: ostensibly conscientious but more-or-less selfish.
I fall into the egoist though I’d add rational to the description. Lying isn’t rational. Stealing isn’t rational. Killing (except in self-defense or the defense of others) isn’t rational. There are a bunch of other things but basically it is look out for yourself while treating others the way you expect to be treated.
Slee
Where is the the golden rule, with perhaps a bit of practical consideration thrown in ?
While I would like to think that I’m diligent enough to figure out the moral thing to do in each situation, I actually am more utilitarian than anything else.
My categorical imperative is to pursue the golden mean between egoist utilitarianism and cultural expectations on a situational basis.
Which option is that? 
Yeah, I’d go with that too, although I voted for Utilitarianism above.
I believe, generally, in trying to do the most good for the greatest number of people. I believe in democracy, the Constitution, a market economy, the rule of law, free speech and civil liberty. I believe in the value of the individual, and the legal equality of all people. I believe we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings, should be kind to each other, and should help the less fortunate. I believe we only have one planet and should do our best to safeguard it.
I picked “other,” but I’d have preferred “none.”
I don’t think philosophically, and I don’t recall ever having an ethical dilemma. I don’t always do what’s “right,” but I think I know without much hand wringing what the right thing is.
I chose “situational”, but there’s a large element of the categorical imperative to my ethical thinking. It’s just not unchangeable.
Sounds pretty Kantian. Complete with counsels of prudence.
Srsly. In the Grundlegung, Kant contends we recognize the divinity of Christ because he conforms so perfectly to the categorical imperative.
This would be why I said ‘Other.’ I tend to make decisions based on what I would want others to do if they were in my shoes. Tends to make me get screwed sometimes but it is worth it to feel good about myself and who I am.
Kant may have disagreed, but the Categorical Imperative is close enough to the Golden Rule for government work.
Other. Existentialist ethics. The only right is what my own free will wants.
I chose utilitarian, though something closer to “situational utilitarian” would be closer.
Ethical egoism, or as I call it, ethical hedonism. One life to live, I’m going to enjoy it, as much as I can without hurting anyone.