Is there a way to unify different ethical systems into one theory or reduce them to each other?

They're a cynic + Platonic combo. They are a virtue ethics with four cardinal virtues:

>Wisdom (σοφία "sophia")
>Courage (ανδρεία "andreia")
>Justice (διkαιοσύνη "dikaiosyne")
>Temperance (σωφροσύνη "sophrosyne")

Deontology and Virtue Ethics are based in a purely subjective view of the world.

>Deontology: Be good, it's your duty.
Duty to whom? To society, supposedly. But what does it mean to be good for my 'duty'? Who decides this?

>Virtue Ethics: Be Virtuous
What does it mean to be virtuous? Who decides this? How do I become virtuous in the first place?

Consequentialism is at least based in logical outcomes.
>Consequentialism: Don't fuck up or bad thing happens
The only real hole there is in who decides what the bad outcome is. But, at least then, there's physical evidence to suggest.

Ergo, considering one is based on logic and the other two off of subjective bases, I say: no. This isn't to say the others are 'bad' or 'ineffectual'. One could even suggest that to take either of the other routes is in good Consequentialist sense (i.e. Do your duty or shit will go awry).

Attached: Shook.jpg (2560x1440, 292K)

>The only real hole there is in who decides what the bad outcome is
Usually its who you piss off. There is no bad stuff unless there are agents that can be pissed off.

If you shit on a bridge, even if you have done no wrong, the fact that people use bridge may find it a bad thing and be pissed at you. So "who decides" is merely other agents. You ofcourse have a choice in either not pissing off others or deciding on who to piss off by shitting on a car instead of the bridge.

> Who decides this?
Supposedly there exists the cross-cultural consensus on what is a virtue and what is not.

>What does it mean to be virtuous? Who decides this? How do I become virtuous in the first place?

Epictetus argues that virtue is just about living a life that flows nicely, and is free from issues. ie, be virtuous and you'll be happy. You can argue that the virtues chosen are somewhat arbitrary, but it's just a system that works in that it produces people who are content, and that standard is what we should judge philosophies by.

>Ends up being pseudo-consequentialism anyway
Every time.

>Supposedly there exists the cross-cultural consensus on what is a virtue and what is not.

Sedentary urban societies are typically going to agree on some basics. Typically a sorta universal be nice to everyone, because they want people to not go around murdering so society can be stable. Only when you deal with nomadic societies are you going to come into disagreement.

>duties
Spook
>virtue
Spook
>consequences
This actually exists so that's the only good one.

Of course; it was more of a hypothetical counter because I wanted to cover any base I could think of. I really can't think of any pure arguments against it. Maybe it's too much thought versus action...? Too much "Ask questions first, shoot later." for some...? I don't know.

Fair.

Also fair, but I'm glad you bring up the latter argument. It is a bit arbitrary in its nature, and once again why I claim to disagree with OP.

It's all just aesthetics dressed up in the garb of morality.

You have to base this shit on something, otherwize it's a freeform floating random noise that doesn't matter.

>It is a bit arbitrary in its nature, and once again why I claim to disagree with OP.

Plato, Aristotle, and Stoics all came up with lists of virtue, and then broke them down. As far as I can tell, they all said the same thing, just with different classifications. Different names, and different heirarchy, but the same. So it doesn't quite matter which ones you choose.

Then just admit you are a consequentialist instead of 'muh spooky virtues'

> they all said the same thing
It is like they were all born in the same moral system or something.

wow, there's some real retards in this thread. Read some contemporary anglo-american moral philosophy you greek loving cucks. user, go read some Derek Parfit, he's the best moral philosopher of the last 200 years, he has a moral system that is somewhere between consequentialism and deontology.

>anglo-american moral philosophy

Attached: Q1E8HKd[1].jpg (645x773, 47K)

>philosophy
>past 200 years
It was replace by science in the past 2 centuries didn't anyone tell you

>Deontology and Virtue Ethics are based in a purely subjective view of the world.

>Deontology: Be good, it's your duty.
Duty to whom? To society, supposedly. But what does it mean to be good for my 'duty'? Who decides this?

>Virtue Ethics: Be Virtuous
What does it mean to be virtuous? Who decides this? How do I become virtuous in the first place?

Consequentialism is at least based in logical outcomes.
>Consequentialism: Don't fuck up or bad thing happens
The only real hole there is in who decides what the bad outcome is. But, at least then, there's physical evidence to suggest.

Ergo, considering one is based on logic and the other two off of subjective bases, I say: no. This isn't to say the others are 'bad' or 'ineffectual'. One could even suggest that to take either of the other routes is in good Consequentialist sense (i.e. Do your duty or shit will go awry).

Your own argument is self-defeating. Who determines which consequences are good? Not to mention, that's a lousy objection. Teleology is pretty simple and straight forward, if you'd ever read any you'd understand how they decided what is virtuous, i.e. proper function oughts. Also, read some Kant, pretty straight forward how he arrived at what was good, i.e. personal autonomy.

>being a physicalist in 2018

Read Mary's room you ignorant slut

Preferring continental philosophy is like preferring astrology to astronomy

Just for future reference, this is how we quote, bub. And with le mee-mee arrows if it's a direct statement. Just click the post #.

But that's the beauty of it- It's pretty clear which consequences are 'good' or 'bad'. I mean, granted, those are subjective; but 'positive' and 'negative' certainly aren't. Not to mention, it too is a straightforward method:

>Think before you act

I understand the concepts themselves. But in OP's post, it isn't "Which is better", it's "Can they combine into a superideology". To which I say it cannot, since 2 are subjective and 1 is not.

Anglos and Americans have been dominant forever, and frankly, everyone's getting real bored of them. We're looking in new directions. There's interest in Continental, ancient Greek/Roman, and Eastern thought.

So you think you have a methodology that can guide you in recognizing good consequences, so you must already know what the good is. I'm wondering, can you share with me? I'd like to be enlightened.

Also, that's just false. If you think deontology and virtue ethics are subjective, then you must think the same about utilitarianism. Proper function oughts aren't subjective. Neither is deontology. Read Parfit, he combines consequentialism and deontology pretty masterfully, plus he's a moral realist meaning that he thinks these are objective moral facts.

Cool, there's interest. There's also interest in astrology, it does not follow that there should be.

Also, it's funny that you left out medieval thought, as it's superior to all the traditions you listed. Anyway, ancient greco-roman thought has dominated the academy since its inception. It's time to move on.

You keep saying "Good is subjective" when I literally said
>...'good' or 'bad'. I mean, granted, those are subjective...
I think I get the point.

Key factor: Positive and Negative. I used different words for a reason. The connotation here is that they are factually, clearly positive. If a decision will lead to death, it is clearly negative. Unless that is the goal (i.e. suicide). Hence why 'positive' and 'negative' may be used interchangeably this case.

Now, I won't play the game where I try to act superior to you. I haven't read Parfit. So, I will concede here.

> "unless that's the goal"

Yeah, so positive and negative aren't objective either, they depend on an agents intention?

If so, then these are just conditionals.

The same could be said about good and bad, so this little semantic turn really doesn't help you at all.

I'm not trying to act superior, it's just the "DAE ethics besides consequentialism is like subjective bro" argument is lazy and false. Parfit is a massively important 20th century philosopher, you should check him out if you have time. Reasons and Persons is really great.

If you take them in a broad sense, sure.
>Your duty is to try to achieve the best consequences possible and the best way to do this is by cultivating virtue
done

lrn2quote, fgt