ARW: What is my "theory or approach to ethics?"

If I have to make an ethical choice of what is right or wrong, how will I decide?

Thomas A. Shannon's Introduction to Bioethics describes four approaches to ethical decision making, and here are their definitions and major benefits and problems. Examples can be very useful, too.

1. Consequentialism: "Outcomes"
Definition: An approach where we think: What will bring the greatest positive result/outcome to the greatest number of people?
Benefit: Flexible and sensitive. Looks at the impact of the decision and asks how people will be affected by it
Problem: No standard to measure one outcome against another.
Example: If I am starving in the desert, and I happen to find a dead human body, will I eat it? If I eat it, the outcome will be that I live and become a "cannibal". Which outcome is worse?

My Opinion: This seems quite reasonable to me. I think it might be most reasonable to decide things case by case by the greatest foreseeable benefit.

2. Deontologism: "Duties"
Definition: An approach where we think: What is my duty? and base our idea of duty on some principal such as Kant's "Categorical Imperative" Moses' 10 Commandments.
Benefit: Simple and clear. Just follow the rules.
Problem: Who made the rules? And what if they are unreasonable?
Example: If I have an ethical duty (as the 10 commandments say) to never kill anyone, what will I do when a maniac is trying to kill my son or daughter and I have no way to stop him except to kill him?

My Opinion: Deontologism seems a little bit too dogmatic for me. In my university Philosophy course, many years ago, I remember feeling impressed by the Categorical Imperative "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I felt that we should try to aim for something universal in what we do, not situational or relative. However, now that I am older, I feel that it may be more realistic to allow flexibility.

3. Rights Ethics: "Rights"
Definition: An approach where we think: "What are the rights of the individual persons (or animals) involved?" What is the hierarchy of rights? Example: Abortion
Benefit: Highlights the importance of the individual person (over society or some higher institution such as a religion or political body).
Problem: What happens when two persons' rights come into conflict?
Example: In abortion, the rights of the unborn child are in conflict with the right of the mother to choose to abort.

My Opinion: Rights ethics...where do "rights" come from? I think it was Kant who argued that all humans have a right to be treated with respect and dignity because they have the ability to "reason". Personally, I think we like to respect human rights simply because we hope that our own personal rights will be respected in reciprocation. The Golden Rule.

4. Intuitionalism
Definition: An approach where we think: "What feels right?"
Benefit: Feels right.
Problem: It may feel right for you, but not for others. In that case, reaching social agreement by convincing others may be difficult.
Example: I may feel that making a human clone of myself (a mini-Mark) is completely reasonable, but society may not agree. Laws for cloning may not be passed because I do not have any way to articulate my reasons for why cloning is beneficial or at least not harmful to society.

My Opinion: As Shannon argues, intuition may not be enough in some cases. However, can it be said that it IS enough in many cases? For example, if we want to vote to allow medical marijuana or ban the death penalty in Japan, isn't it enough that people just follow their gut instinct?

So...I would say that I am a intuitive consequentialist. How about you?