A borrowed post about Ethics from Paul S.

Three Major Meta-Ethical Philosophies
In modern studied ethics, there are three major philosophies that are followed post-Kant. Kant is the grandfather of modern ethical thought, arguing that because religious texts so often conflict, it is not possible to create a basic framework for ethics, because it is possible to argue multiple responses within the constraints of the same religious texts. Philosophy of Logic was already in place, and using this, he created a new form of ethical thought that forever changed the nature of ethics.

Deontology

Defined by Kant, it was a series of three maxims that could be used to determine an ethical act.

First, all acts must be treated as if they are laws of nature. Hence, if I murder someone, assume everyone would do it, and would nature succeed in such a state? Of course not, so murder is unnacceptable. Also, in the case of lying, everyone would lie, and so nobody would be trusted. Hence, lying would become useless. Therefore, don't lie.

Second, all of humanity must be treated as an end, not a means to an end. Hence, slavery is unnacceptable, because that is the use of human life to reach an end (comfort or production), and not treating that person as an ends in themselves.

Third, you are ethical as long as you create laws within the maxims and follow your own laws.

Difficulties include defining humanity (or the receiver) and laws of nature (generally, what is deserved, such as right to life, or what has value in that situation). Most likely, in the ethics challenge, we'll end up with some form of deontological thought.

Utilitarianism

An act is judged by how much good it creates or bad it destroys. See my previous entry for more information on this.

Some people would argue that Utilitarianism is flawed in that it is possible to reach the conclusion that all life should be destroyed in order to prevent even the smallest pain. While we are a miserable lot, we will look at this later, and we will see if it is flawed.

Virtue Ethics

Aristotle, and later St. Thomas Aquinas, defined virtue ethics, although differently. Both were questionable (Aristotle believed that only wealthy Greek men could be virtuous, Aquinas thought non-believers of Catholicism should be put to death), but that is simply ad hominem, and does not give their arguments its right.

Virtue Ethics were the belief that there were virtuous traits, and by having them, you could be virtuous. Aquinas had a list, but Aristotle defined them as the mean between two disparate qualities (being a coward and being foolhardy were met in the middle with bravery).

People who disagree with Aquinas would say that it is difficult to define virtuous acts (one person could say a virtuous woman is servile, quiet, etc.). People who disagree with Aristotle say that there are infinite virtuous qualities, and that deviation from the means is sometimes necessary to do things that are often virtuous (saving a life through a foolhardy act, etc.).

Virtue Ethics has been noted most often in theological studies, for those who are interested.

Finally

So, what do you guys think, knowing where I come from in all this, knowing what I studied at a Jesuit Catholic University (that often rejected Aquinas outright)? Which is your favorite, and how would you refute it?

For note, the Ethics by Democracy Challenge (if I get 40 people, I'm up to seven), gets off, the result, by my guess, would most likely be deontological in nature. I will not have a vote, by the way, but I'll toss in some twisted rules to vote on, just for fun.

Also to note, these are not the only philosophical ethics, but most others (like theological) are applied or normative.
Paul Salcido