What do you think about.... (warning: philosophical content)

[Spreeuw]

Of course, that deontololgy and utlitarianism feed one off the other was central to my point that the OP would benefit from an introduction to ethics. Ethical questions are philosophical in nature and have no clear-cut answers, hence the fact that we still debate them.

Well, philosophically there are very different thoughts. My opening post was not about utilitarianism vs. Deontology.
Rational choice is not concerned about the most happiness of the most people, it's concerned with actor A getting most of what it wants, on the cost of other people if it's necessary.
Justice has more conceptions then one, util. deon. and teleo. schools of thought all have to do with ethics in the whole sense, but justice is only a little part of ethics (Who get's what, when, how, where?).

That being said, the different ethical schools definitely don't "feed off" the other. They are not arguing about what constitutes a certain action (intent, action itself or consequences) they are arguing what is most important for judging it's morality.
Ofcourse in everyday life everyone uses all three of them simultaniously, but you can't compare Machiavelli (pure (and thus immoral (not amoral)) consequentialist) with Kant (Pure deontologist).

 

[xfire]

Of course they feed off of each other. If they didn't there would be no debate. Alas, I take your point about comparing Kant with Machiavelli, or Neitzche for that matter, take it and reject it because people choose which fruit they prefer every day. And the beat drums on.

 

[vodkazvictim]

Of course they feed off of each other. If they didn't there would be no debate. Alas, I take your point about comparing Kant with Machiavelli, or Neitzche for that matter, take it and reject it because people choose which fruit they prefer every day. And the beat drums on.

^^Sorry Spreeuw, I believe this boy's got it; They influence each other and the rules of a deontologically guided justice system would have to be inspired other value systems than simply "respect the rules".
Treat others as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end appears a utilitarian aim to me:
You maximise the happiness of all you apply it to.

 

[Spreeuw]

Of course they feed off of each other. If they didn't there would be no debate. Alas, I take your point about comparing Kant with Machiavelli, or Neitzche for that matter, take it and reject it because people choose which fruit they prefer every day. And the beat drums on.

Hmm, well I didn't mean they could be completely seperated from each other because both are about what is just. What I meant, and posted earlier, was that both put a different emphasis. Kant would say some actions are always wrong, but for Machiavelli, or Aristotle it depends on the circumstances.
Kant would reject this totally, for example, killing is always a crime against physical integrity and is always wrong.
Both other author's would say there's a place and time for every action.

On this they totally disagree, but ofcourse there are similarities.

 

[windowsxp02]

rational