Sivad wrote:I'm not sure how you're defining syncretic but for me it's recognizing that there's some validity in each of the competing theories without taking any of one of them as an absolute.
Thats like saying "I'm a syncretic and not a utilitarian" because "I accept all ideas from all ethical schools; whether normative, pragmatic, divine-command, egoist, existential, and deontological"......."
so long as they are utilitarian."
The criteria of "for the greatest good" is itself an ethical standard, and so if all moral positions are judged by that standard, you cannot call your position "syncretic."
For Instance, I could say "I accept ideas from utilitarianism, egoism, humanism, and Kant's categorical imperative......as long as they can find some sort of support in Sacred Scripture; therefore i'm an ethical syncretic, not a divine-command theorist." That would obviously be untrue.
Sivad wrote:The greater good is the optimal balance of the rights of the individual with social utility, with broader historical and developmental concerns, as well as personal virtue. All of these things have a moral weight that we're obligated to recognize and respect, they're integral and intrinsic to the greater good and not just pragmatic requirements for achieving it.
Sure, but that is still your ultimate ethical standard and so you can't use it as your "litmus" test for which ethical concepts make it on your plate off of the buffet of moral philosophy and then tell me you're a "syncretic." You're not.
I for one reject the greatest good as my standard. I don't think ethical values can be calculated that way without committing some sort of fallacy.