>>1124491
The nice thing about deonthology is that you have to be consequent, so if you're being utilitarian you're not a deontologist by definition.

>>1124820
So you'd just call me a utilitarian with some uncompromisable principles or something?

>>1124820
This is unreadable.

I actually have a theory that people use all of the ethical systems all the time in their life, without thinking about it, partly because they may not know much about ethics, but also because it's hard to be morally consistent.

Think about it, people will give up their seat for old people on the train(which could be a form of virtue), people will acknowledge that it's necessary to bomb a certain person even with potential civilian casualties, but people also say that murder or theft is always immoral.

>>1125003
No, it's just that you're retarded. That's okay.

>>1125015
Interesting stuff, seems to be the case. Maybe they use these systems because, though theyre idealtypes, they still stem from human behaviour thats simply been translated into philosophical theory.

>>1125052
I've always thought that it would be cool to do a study on this. I just need to figure out the "how" part, or where to begin in the first place.