Interesting! I'm teaching Ethics at A-level at the moment, an area of philosophy almost completely new to me. AFAICS, there are three main ways of slicing the ethical pie:
Distinction 1: (i) Theories which consider the good of the community first (e.g. utilitarianism, social-contract theory) (ii) Theories which consider the good of the individual first (e.g. Virtue Ethics, where morality arises from the urge to be a Good Person -- the Ancient Greek idea) (iii) Theories which are all about an abstract Duty (e.g Kant).
(Of course, in class (i) the Social Contract can originate from a collection of self-interested motives. But once it's in place, the community trumps the individual.)
Distinction 2: (i) Theories in which the consequences of an individual act outweigh the general rule ("Consequentialist"), and (ii) Theories in which they don't ("Deontological").
Distinction 3: (i) Theories in which moral propositions have, at least in principle, a well-defined truth-value ("Cognitivist"), and (ii) Theories in which they don't ("Non-Cognitivist," e.g. full-blown relativism, emotivism, prescriptivism).
Sounds like the philosopher you mention was concentrating on the first of these distinctions. Perhaps the very fact you're trying to code this up means that the question raised by the third distinction has been well and truly begged. Distinction 2 is useful to get the fine-shading of the big classes in Distinction 1 (e.g. "act" vs "rule" versions of Utilitarianism; do we look over every act with a utilitarian eye, or go for the set of rules which, on the whole, works best?)
I've found the study of these classifications and their consequences to be fascinating, even if every single actual ethical theory seems to be fatally flawed. Heigh ho, that's philosophy for you. Maybe the best it can do is provide a technical vocabulary to facilitate debate..?
no subject
Distinction 1: (i) Theories which consider the good of the community first (e.g. utilitarianism, social-contract theory) (ii) Theories which consider the good of the individual first (e.g. Virtue Ethics, where morality arises from the urge to be a Good Person -- the Ancient Greek idea) (iii) Theories which are all about an abstract Duty (e.g Kant).
(Of course, in class (i) the Social Contract can originate from a collection of self-interested motives. But once it's in place, the community trumps the individual.)
Distinction 2: (i) Theories in which the consequences of an individual act outweigh the general rule ("Consequentialist"), and (ii) Theories in which they don't ("Deontological").
Distinction 3: (i) Theories in which moral propositions have, at least in principle, a well-defined truth-value ("Cognitivist"), and (ii) Theories in which they don't ("Non-Cognitivist," e.g. full-blown relativism, emotivism, prescriptivism).
Sounds like the philosopher you mention was concentrating on the first of these distinctions. Perhaps the very fact you're trying to code this up means that the question raised by the third distinction has been well and truly begged. Distinction 2 is useful to get the fine-shading of the big classes in Distinction 1 (e.g. "act" vs "rule" versions of Utilitarianism; do we look over every act with a utilitarian eye, or go for the set of rules which, on the whole, works best?)
I've found the study of these classifications and their consequences to be fascinating, even if every single actual ethical theory seems to be fatally flawed. Heigh ho, that's philosophy for you. Maybe the best it can do is provide a technical vocabulary to facilitate debate..?