h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ethics can be best understood by categorisation. Firstly:

1. All ethics can be categorised under either Consequentialism or Deontology. (An act is right because of the consequences. Or an act is right becuase of the act itself.)

2. Ethics can then be categorised into 4 seperate sections again:

- Subjectivism
- Relativism
- Universalism
- Absolutism

-Subjectivism says that whatever I think is right, is right. (ie. Emotivism, Intuitionism etc.)
-Relativism says that whatever each person thinks is right for them. This is linked with antirealist ethics and metaphysics.
-Universalism says that there are absolute values but there are some situations in which it is best to act in other ways.
-Absolutism says that there is an absolute moral standard which should be followed without question.

Structuring the article in this way may lead to a clearer picture of the differences between the different ethical systems.

Deontology, while nonconsequentialist, isn't particularly concerned with acts in themselves, like naturalism and non-naturalism; Kantian deontology, the best-known case, is concerned with a rational principle of non-self-contradiction.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#1

'The ultimate subject matter of ethics is the nature and content of the principles that necessarily determine a rational will... Kant's analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good without qualification is a "good will".'

Subjectivism -- quoting Mackie's 'The Subjectivity of Values':

'Another name often used, as an alternative for "moral scepticism"... is "subjectivism". But this too has more than one meaning. Moral subjectivism... could be a first order, normative view, namely that everyone really ought to do whatever he thinks he should. This plainly is a (systematic) first order view... What is more confusing is that several second order views compete for the name "subjectivism". Several of these are about the meaning of moral terms and moral statements. What is often called moral subjectivism is the doctrine that, for example, "This action is right" _means_ "I approve of this action", or more generally that moral judgments are reports of the speaker's own feelings or attitudes.'

Emotivism ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/#1.3 ) is a metaethical theory about language use.

Intuitionism need not be subjective, since it may be that there are objective moral facts which we learn about by intuition. It's the claim that ethics is _nothing but_ intuitions that's subjectivist. See this case of intuitions playing an epistemic role in a deontological theory: 'According to Ross, I will intuitively know which of these duties is my actual duty, and which is my apparent or prima facie duty.'
( http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/ethics.htm#SH2b )

You also need to pay more attention to cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/#1.3 In general, you're failing to distinguish normative ethics from metaethics.

Relativism as you've described it is specifically personal relativism, as opposed to, say, cultural.

No mention of virtue/character/agent-centred ethics, despite its having been enjoying quite a comeback for a while. No sentimentalism either, and no error theory, but they are at least less well known, whereas rejecting virtue ethics out of hand is very unusual.

My point was Kants deonontology is non-consequentialist, it may or may not be its primary focus.

I know I was being vague, but what can I say? And the answer is... more specific things.

My main point was that it would be nice to have a bit more structure, indeed distinguising between meta-ethics and normative ethics. And virtue ethics would be nice too. etc. etc. blah blah blah.