An interesting - and notoriously complex - topic. My 'short answer' to the specific thread question is "me".

In more prosaic terms, I certainly lean to the teleological or 'consequentialist' view of ethics - almost entirely.

My reasons for this are several, indeed I could say that I'm most in favor of the consequentialist school of ethics only because I consider other schools of ethics to be inherently more problematic (and in many cases too egotistical for my taste). That is to say, I have rationally chosen the consequentialist school of ethics as the 'least bad option' (it seems most of my most personal opinions on serious matters boil down to a kind of 'lesser of two evils' type proposition).

The key problem I have with deontological ethics is that such a system 'rewards' or 'favors' actions that may ultimately be extremely harmful to a great many people, yet still be considered a 'morally good' act. That strikes me as perverse.

My second principle critique of deontology is that such morality is entirely private, subjective and essentially invisible to all. Assertions of deontological motive cannot be questioned, cannot be observed and cannot be verified. Deontological morality is thus the easiest form of morality to fake, manipulate or hide behind (since one's own state of mind cannot be verified by anyone). Again, this strikes me as a significant weakness in any moral system.

On the other hand, the only substantial problem I have with the teleological or consequentialist view of ethics is the inherent uncertainty of the extent of the chain of causation. It does seem to me to be logically impossible to draw a specific line or point and say, "my culpability goes only thus far and ends at this particular point". As the chaos theory argument goes, a butterfly flapping its wings in Tahiti can, in theory, produce a tornado in Kansas. If that's true, any system of teleological ethics needs to make a determination about how far responsibility of causation can be understood to extend - in human terms. This is obviously a major theoretical hurdle for any teleological-based ethical system, but I consider this problem to be inherently more 'manageable' than the multiple critical flaws I see in the deontological system of ethics.

On this basis, I generally subscribe to consequentialist interpretations of moral responsibility - keeping in mind the inherent difficulty of so doing. As a working formula, I use the legal standard of 'reasonable effort' in consideration of consequences that can be rationally predicted - and consequences only to the first and/or second degree of rationally predictable effects or chain reactions. A key caveat here would be the importance of not holding a person morally guilty just because they are stupid (and thus have limited abilities to rationally determine reasonably predictable consequences).

Any way one chooses to approach the issue of morality or ethics is inherently problematic. No known ethical system exists that is without serious logical challenges.

As an obscure side note, I might also mention that I consider Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Racing to be to Kant, what The Fountainhead is to Nietzsche. In both cases, I much prefer the complexities and problems of the master over the too simplistic answers provided by the figuratively wayward student. Though I will commend Pirsig & Rand for inspiring popular interest in these kind of topics, delivered in a language and style accessible to anyone, I despair that the journey begun all too often ends precisely where it began and rarely goes further or anywhere else. Though, if I had to choose as 'literature', I much prefer Rand to Pirsig, I think Pirsig is better philosophy than Rand.

It's maintenance, not racing...

__________________
PoliticalQuiz.net says I'm a "Harcore Libertarian"

Bush Third Termer: (n) A person that opposes Congressman Ron Paul's nomination.

Yes it is. I stand corrected.

I don't follow any system. I let my conscience be my guide and it is pretty strict. When faced with a quandary, though (and I know this sounds horribly trite), I ask myself WWJD. Really. I started doing that years ago before the phrase was commercialized to death. This Wiccan did it first! :azn:

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

"So, have you ever gotten your wife that pissed off in front of her?"
"Yeah. You know, my mama told me, whenever I get in a jam to ask myself, 'What would Jesus do?'"
"So?"
"Well, I tried to turn her into a fish. Begone, Satan! Hello, Shamoo!

Well, at least Shamoo only has one blowhole."

:p

__________________
An' it harm none, do as ye' will.


Never argue with an idiot. He'll just drag you down to his level of intelligence and beat you with experience.

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."