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

I feel that the real issue here is not how ethics are catergorised but which set of ethics are actually correct, whichever way you categorise them. Personally, I feel, as a believer in God, that the Authoritarian approach to ethics is best.

You may be right. But as a born-again Buddhist with lapsed animist tendencies, I am inclined to shy away from that, even without George Bush as a role model.

It's helpful to categorise ethical theories before discussing which is "correct", as it gives you a language to use when discussing. The important thing about a house is that it keeps the rain off, but that doesn't mean that the walls and foundations are missing the point.

I believe that the most moral people are people without morals - following a ridgid set of morals isn't going to help you to achieve what you wish to, e.g. the happiness of others, so why abide by them? I don't.

'Many say that I have no morals, and yet I'm a very moral person' - Lady Farthingdale from Sharpe's enemy

As I assume you have guessed, I'm a hedonist.

Good to know that not everyone has been dragged into the 'hate Bush or you're a Nazi' fad (not to say that all people who hate Bush are doing it just for fashion).

They at least have some useful function - ridgid ethics don't. There may be general rules of actions that lead to happiness, but these should be viewed as like 'laws of nature', rather than 'laws of authority'.