Deontology- that the effect of decisions is irrelevant and independent of the decisions themselves. Thus, murder, no matter how positive its effects, must be evaluated in isolation.

Utilitarianism- that effects alter the moral nature of decisions. Ends justify means. The whole "would you kill baby Hitler?" scenario is an example of something that reveals this dichotomy.

Pluralism- In vague terms, that both have correct characteristics. A pluralist, for example, may not accept that effects and decisions are not connected moral decisions; however they also may in some cases say that effects cannot always justify decisions. If you have certain absolute (for example, a certain construct on what justice is), then effects cannot always justify and judge the morality of actions, but many times they can.

Feel free to clean up these definitions, you philosophy majors, you.

What are you?

Mostly a consequentialist (consequentialism is to utilitarianism what physicalism is to materialism). As for your definitions, I would just say--for the sake of clarity--that consequentialists think that actions are made right or wrong by their consequences. Thus, a consequentialist thinks a particular murder is wrong if and only if the negative consequences of it outweigh the positive.

well every since I learned about it in high school, i've always been a utilitarian it seems. I've always thought, if I had to die for several other people to live, I definitely would without hesitation. What's good for the majority seems to be right most of the time.... though there is always exceptions.

Consequentalist? I think everyone is a consequentalist. noone would make a bad choice if they knew it would come with a worse result than the other choice. just my thought

-marty

From your definitions I'd say I'm a pluralist leaning heavily towards utilitarianism.

I'd definitely say I'm a pluralist. Intent is obviously important, but the idea of deontology is that a completely intent-conscious and absolutist(people who see morals as black and white and would never ever murder or steal) world would be better. But since our world is full of disease and people who abandon morality, consequences need to be considered.

However, Utilitarianism is about the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and that makes things like objectification morally acceptable. Also, utilitarianism seems to require us to be doing a constant stream of moral math, which is impossible to fully live by. Deontology isn't perfect either, like as Kaz says, you couldn't kill baby Hitler or do stem cell research. So for me, pluralism appears the most logical.