Deontology is superior

Admit it, a system based on a priori ethical maxims founded on the categorical imperative is the only way to form a coherent system of ethics. Everything else is just meme teir.

you can't imagine my dismay when I found out through genealogy that I'm part Anglo

Virtue ethics is and always has been superior

this is correct

If scientific ethics means nuking the Middle East, then it's obviously superior.

Did the image intend to make that point?

How about them error theory?

Anybody got all the variables to this or know where I can find them?

I like McIntryre's stance on it. It's very clear the enlightenment failed to find an absolute moral system and we are going to have to deal with relativism in one way or another.

silly frogposter

MacIntyre doesn't even understand Kant and his virtue ethics is just a rationalization of "do as the Catholic church tells you". There's a reason it was thrown into the thrash during the Enlightenment.

>and his virtue ethics is just a rationalization of "do as the Catholic church tells you".
You have never read him have you? Be honest. Because the only way you can come to this conclusion is to ignore half of what he wrote.

>There's a reason it was thrown into the thrash during the Enlightenment.
And there is a reason that it was revived in the 50's and has exploded in academic support in the last 20 years.

Well, I certainly don't agree with Kant or the categorical imperative, but I do think that a moral system having it's roots in our cultural emotional history will be more worthwhile than one based on consequences.

>virtue ethics came from Catholicism

How did glorious peoples like the germans and the celts decayed into dirty anglos? Inbreeding? Poor diet?

Yeah, if you're in the civil service...

Interestingly, McIntyre agreed with Aquinas heavily after Virtue Ethics.

>It's very clear the enlightenment failed to find an absolute moral system and we are going to have to deal with relativism in one way or another.

#1: There never was an absolute moral system.

#2: There is no reason to suppose that moral relativism is a bad thing, nor any reason to suppose that the alternative is preferable.

The Germans were one of the least sophisticated ethnic branches of the Indo-Europeans. I'm surprised that even with the help of the Latins they were ever able to achieve anything.

>#1: There never was an absolute moral system.
>never
Yep, I mean it's not like people ever thought there was anything like God to derive morality, or reason or utility. No one ever believed those things.

>No one ever believed those things.

Not really.

I see you are taking the Putin approach. Tell such an outrageous obvious lie that people don't really know what to do next.

Thanks Zizek

Best answer so far. Relativism/consequentialism drop your duty ethics bullshit shitposter op

So.. your idea is that we should find something objectionable somewhere in that crude drawing?

You have your Putin game down.

edgy

Virtue ethics would be nice if actions didn't have consequences.