NationStates Jolt Archive

So what brand of ethics best describes your moral fibre? (note that they are not all mutually exclusive)
Are things right because God says so, or because it makes you feel good? Or just because it's what has to be done for the betterment of mankind (or at least the people you know).


Divine command ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory):
The divine command theory is the metaethical theory that moral values are whatever is commanded by a god or gods.

Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism):
Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics based on quantitative maximization of some good for society or humanity. It is a form of consequentialism. This good is often happiness or pleasure, though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences. Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative):
The categorical imperative is the philosophical concept central to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant and to modern deontological ethics. He introduced the concept in his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. It is outlined here according to the arguments found in this work.
Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain kind of action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action under a particular circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink this lemonade. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, and is both required and justified as an end in itself.

Social contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract):
Social contract (or contractarianism) is a phrase used in philosophy, political science and sociology to denote a real or hypothetical agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society or by not violating the contract.

Deontological ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology):
Deontological Ethics (from the Greek Deon, meaning obligation), or Deontology, is an ethical theory considered solely on duty and rights, where one has an unchanging moral obligation to abide by a set of defined principles. Thus, the ends of any action never justify the means in this ethical system. If someone were to do their moral duty, then it would not matter if it had negative consequences. Therefore, consequentialism is the philosophical antithesis of this theory.

Virtue ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics):
In philosophy, the phrase virtue ethics refers to ethical systems that focus primarily on what sort of person one should try to be. Thus, one of the aims of virtue ethics is to offer an account of the sort of characteristics a virtuous person has.

Ethical Hedonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism):
Hedonism (Greek: hēdonē "pleasure" + –ism) describes any way of thinking that gives pleasure a central role. Hedonism can be generally summed up as "Pleasure is the highest good", or in an ethical formulation, "whatever causes pleasure is right."

Ethical relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_relativism):
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

Ethical nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Nihilism_in_ethics_and_morality):
In the world of ethics, nihilist or nihilistic is often used as a derogatory word referring to a complete rejection of all systems of authority, morality, and social custom, or one who purportedly makes such a rejection. Either through the rejection of previously accepted bases of belief or through extreme relativism or skepticism, the nihilist is construed as one who believes that none of these claims to power are valid, and often that they should be fought against. From a nihilist point of view, the ultimate source of moral values is the individual rather than culture or another rational (objective -- this being an interjection) foundation.

I subscribe to Moderate Nihilism, that is that the concept of society is an idea created by -and supported by- the continued tolerance of it by the individual. This said, the individual is most important building block of moralty, society & divinity, all of which are contructs of the individual fancy.

At this point, I would have to say I fall into the nihilist category. I haven't been able to find any good base for ethics.

I subscribe to Moderate Nihilism, that is that the concept of society is an idea created by -and supported by- the continued tolerance of it by the individual. This said, the individual is most important building block of moralty, society & divinity, all of which are contructs of the individual fancy.But isn't the individual also largely a construct of society and it's norms? From early on in life society shapes us, via institutions like school, religion. And parents try to instill some sort of morals usually ones prevalent in society.
I don't think people usually have much of a chance to stop supporting society, if they try they're punished. Just leaving or being thrown out can be punishment enough in some cases, as society also supports is members (or rather encourages its members to support each other, or something like that).

Utilitarian here.

At this point, I would have to say I fall into the nihilist category. I haven't been able to find any good base for ethics.No Nietzscheanism then ;)

Utilitarian here.So, the obvious philosophical dilemma. Would you sacrify one patient to safe 5 others that need transplant organs (they just happen to all be compatible).
One death for 5 lives ..

(Pretty much all ethical systems have such dilemmas, I'm not just gonna try and pick on utilitarianism, in case your wondering)

No Nietzscheanism then

Of course not. I'm not about to embrace a system that would call for my own death.

Too deep for me, voted anyway :P

[edit] voted too quick -- forgot divine command

A combination of the following:

Metaphysical Libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
The Harm Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Enlightened Self-Interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Wu Wei: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu-wei

Anyway, the society could be said to be a spontaneous order, in other words it is of human construct but not necessarily design.

But isn't the individual also largely a construct of society and it's norms? From early on in life society shapes us, via institutions like school, religion. And parents try to instill some sort of morals usually ones prevalent in society.
I don't think people usually have much of a chance to stop supporting society, if they try they're punished. Just leaving or being thrown out can be punishment enough in some cases, as society also supports is members (or rather encourages its members to support each other, or something like that).
However, the society that contructs society's idea of individualism, is a product of individual thought. Therefore, since individual create social ideals and social ideals create social veiws of indivuals, the chicken and egg debate comes to rest with the individual.

A combination of the following:

Metaphysical Libertarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)
The Harm Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Enlightened Self-Interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
Wu Wei: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu-weiI particularly like the parable given on the wiki page for enlightened self-interest
An excellent illustration of the concept is the parable about the man who died and stood before St. Peter, who pointed him down the path to Heaven. "But don't take the left fork in the road," Peter warned, for that leads to Hell.

The man went on his way down the path, and when he came to the left fork, he was so curious that he decided to check out Hell first, and then go on to Heaven. The road to Hell was beautiful, but after a few miles he heard a horrible outcry. Approaching closer he saw an enormous banquet table spread out with all the most delicious foods imaginable, yet the guests were screaming and wailing unconsolably. The problem was they were trying to feed themselves with three foot long chopsticks. So the food was falling on their laps, going down their shirt, in their hair, anywhere but in their mouths, and they were starving.

The man shrunk back in horror and hurried back to the fork in the road, taking the right fork this time. The road to Heaven was beautiful just like the road to Hell. After a few miles he heard laughing and singing and cheering, and on approaching closer, he saw a similar scene to what he witnessed earlier. The banquet table was the same, the food was the same. The guests were even using the same three foot long chopsticks. But here, they were feeding one another.

The parable illustrates the concept that helping another person, which seems like an unselfish act, can actually be the most self-serving thing one can do. Many motivational speakers and life coaches emphasize the fact that the best way to achieve success is to take care that others succeed. This is enlightened self-interest.

How do you see the link between Reason and ethics? (Obviously one can reason about it, but reason doesn't seem to have an ethical component in itself)

So, the obvious philosophical dilemma. Would you sacrify one patient to safe 5 others that need transplant organs (they just happen to all be compatible).
One death for 5 lives ..

Yes. It is a moral duty to sacrifice that one person to save five others. In theory, that is. If such a policy were instituted in real life, the health system would collapse as no-one would go to the hospital for fear of becoming an unwilling organ farm.

So, the obvious philosophical dilemma. Would you sacrify one patient to safe 5 others that need transplant organs (they just happen to all be compatible).
One death for 5 lives ..

(Pretty much all ethical systems have such dilemmas, I'm not just gonna try and pick on utilitarianism, in case your wondering)
No. Because much like other infinate concepts (ie the universe) human life cannot be given a definitive value. Five lots of infinity is not larger then one.

I never really understood the fascination with this whole "ethics" thing. I just do what I want. Sometimes it might make me feel more bad than it does good, either through an emotional empathic response, a sense of spiritual dissatisfaction, or direct pain (people hit back ;) ), so I stop. Trying to attribute these behaviours to any form of higher "logic" or "reason" beyond the stimulus responses of a well formed animal seems painfully, horrifically futile. Logic and reason are about as human and... base as you can get. They have no place in my spiritual intepretation of the world. Real actions, in the real world, aren't ethical. they're governed only by natural forces; not maths and lines and rules in the head. What "ethics" really means as far as I can tell is that a person has purposefully allowed their actions to be predicted based on some code that's probably written down in a book or somewhere. *shudders* now who'd want that?

*ahem* so I guess according to this topic I'm somewhere between Hedonist and Nihilist then... :p

Yes. It is a moral duty to sacrifice that one person to save five others. In theory, that is. If such a policy were instituted in real life, the health system would collapse as no-one would go to the hospital for fear of becoming an unwilling organ farm.That's a good point, it is impractical. There's always side effects in reality.
So would you sacrifice yourself? Or are you guided slightly by hedonism when it comes to yourself.
I always thought it a fair point to limit utilitarianism in some ways; like not exploiting others for the gain of a certain group. You could plunge someone in utter misery if everyone on earth got a good laugh from it, if you take a radical view of utilitarianism. But there might be something to be said for maximizing minimum welfare/utility. And weigh ones own surrounding more heavily (which is also practical since you have more influence there)

No. Because much like other infinate concepts (ie the universe) human life cannot be given a definitive value. Five lots of infinity is not larger then one.So what if the patient you 'sacrifice' isn't killed, just chained to life support for the rest of his life, reducing his quality of life, but also saving the lives of the other 5 patients.
Infinite gain on one side, but not infinite loss on the other.

Interesting thread.

I like Kant, but I couldn't say that I would really follow his categorical imperative. I'm more some kind of hedonist, I guess.

So would you sacrifice yourself? Or are you guided slightly by hedonism when it comes to yourself.
If I leave subjective emotion out of that decision than the answer is yes.

It only makes sense that five lives are more valuable than one.

I always thought it a fair point to limit utilitarianism in some ways; like not exploiting others for the gain of a certain group.
I agree. I am by no means alien to individual rights which are pretty much a practical necessity in many cases.

No. Because much like other infinate concepts (ie the universe) human life cannot be given a definitive value. Five lots of infinity is not larger then one.
The value of Human lives cannot easily be quantified, but as we are neither omnipotent nor immortal, our worth is not, objectively speaking, infinite. Five people are objectively worth more than one.

So what if the patient you 'sacrifice' isn't killed, just chained to life support for the rest of his life, reducing his quality of life, but also saving the lives of the other 5 patients.
Infinite gain on one side, but not infinite loss on the other.
I think I would rather die than be chained to life support.

So what if the patient you 'sacrifice' isn't killed, just chained to life support for the rest of his life, reducing his quality of life, but also saving the lives of the other 5 patients.
Infinite gain on one side, but not infinite loss on the other.
Not quite that easy. Human life is not just breath, it includes the entire function and enjoyment of life they would naturally receive. Effectively one life has been squashed in order to allow some lives to live past their natural entitlement.

The flip side of this is of course that providing no lives are harmed, then there is no reaosn why extending a life past it's natural entitlement should pose an issue.

Trying to attribute these behaviours to any form of higher "logic" or "reason" beyond the stimulus responses of a well formed animal seems painfully, horrifically futile.It has some use in in understanding and dealing with other cultures. As well as to find out what is acceptable in society (like animal experimentation, cloning etc).
There's a difference there between normative and descriptive ethics (resp. 'what you ought to do' and 'what people actually do')

What "ethics" really means as far as I can tell is that a person has purposefully allowed their actions to be predicted based on some code that's probably written down in a book or somewhere. *shudders* now who'd want that?Well, some predictability makes live easier. When I get up in the morning, I'm happy to know pretty much everyone isn't out to kill me, and in fact are against murder under most if not all circumstances.
Ok, so I don't really think about that when I get up in the morning.
I think ethics might make it easier to understand someone behaviour, and explain our own to people. And thus avoid conflict, and learn to live together.

The value of Human lives cannot easily be quantified, but as we are neither omnipotent nor immortal, our worth is not, objectively speaking, infinite. Five people are objectively worth more than one.
I disagree. Whilst human life span is not eternal, the value of it, is infinate. To say it is valued anything less, suggest that human life can be bargained with as a commodity.

With that in mind, five lives cannot be compared to one life, let alone objectively valued.

To say it is valued anything less, suggests that human life can be bargained with as a commodity.
It can't? :/

I think I would rather die than be chained to life support.Me too, although if it happened, I might be too afraid of death to admit it.

Here's another issue for everyone.
There are two men. The first one is really a horrible person at heart, he want to kill maim and whatnot, but when push comes to shove he controls himself and only does what's right (disregarding for a moment what exactly that is, just assume you'd think it was right).
The other men, is really niceness incorperated, no bad thoughts cross his mind. Consequently he also only does what's right.
Who's the better man? The one who struggles to be one, or the one who naturally is?
(This is really about the importance of motivation in ethics.)

It can't? :/
Nope
EDIT: or rather, shouldn't.

Nope
EDIT: or rather, shouldn't.
Why not?

I put down divine command ethics, as I subscribe to Judaism. That said, Judaism claims to be ultimately utilitarian. Judaism teaches you to control you emotions, and to use reason in decisions - Spock would probably be Jewish (wait, Leonard Nimoy IS Jewish!).

As for the value of a human life, there are people who have to put a price tag on a human life. The current number is $10,000,000. If you are determining whether or not to add expensive - but potentially lifesaving - equipment or procedures to something, this is necessary.

I disagree. Whilst human life span is not eternal, the value of it, is infinate. To say it is valued anything less, suggest that human life can be bargained with as a commodity.It _is_ bargained with as a commodity though. Although slavery is increasingly uncommon.
I'm a relativist in this view. Value is something attributed by people.
Some value animals as infinite, others like a good stake. Some value freedom and live in all humans, others value dollars and power higher. (Of course you can always say they're absolutely wrong. But at the very least they perceive the value differently)

Me too, although if it happened, I might be too afraid of death to admit it.

Here's another issue for everyone.
There are two men. The first one is really a horrible person at heart, he want to kill maim and whatnot, but when push comes to shove he controls himself and only does what's right (disregarding for a moment what exactly that is, just assume you'd think it was right).
The other men, is really niceness incorperated, no bad thoughts cross his mind. Consequently he also only does what's right.
Who's the better man? The one who struggles to be one, or the one who naturally is?
(This is really about the importance of motivation in ethics.)
Neither. Goodness can be measured by action. Thought creates the man, but his actions define our impression of him.

It _is_ bargained with as a commodity though. Although slavery is increasingly uncommon.
I'm a relativist in this view. Value is something attributed by people.
Some value animals as infinite, others like a good stake. Some value freedom and live in all humans, others value dollars and power higher. (Of course you can always say they're absolutely wrong. But at the very least they perceive the value differently)
I fail to see the relivence of applying an inferior belief system to my arguement. If I stated that the Earth was round, would you counter with for thousands of years we believed the opposite?

Why not?
Because, in order to establish the goodness of man it is nessacary to establish the value of man.

Neither. Goodness can be measured by action. Thought creates the man, but his actions define our impression of him.But the reason for the action does matter doesn't it? It can't just be the end result that matters. Some go as far as to say it's 'the thought that count' even though it's a horrible ashtray.

Because, in order to establish the goodness of man it is nessacary to establish the value of man.
Why can't a man be worth a cheeseburger? :P

But the reason for the action does matter doesn't it? It can't just be the end result that matters. Some go as far as to say it's 'the thought that count' even though it's a horrible ashtray.
The thoughts doesn't count, it is a poor gift. Thus it is a poor choice. The thought means the individual excists as a conscience being, however only their action can define themselves.

I fail to see the relivence of applying an inferior belief system to my arguement. If I stated that the Earth was round, would you counter with for thousands of years we believed the opposite?Why is it inferior? That's rather the point. You can easily proof the earth is not in fact flat, but with ethics you don't have the luxury of experiments and observation.
Ethics often seems to be a choice, and a random one at that, determined by where you grow up.
Although there are claims of moral absolutism (like divine command, or categorical imperative).
I'm not really sure myself. I don't want to say my ethics are simply better than anyone else, but on the other hand I also don't want to say 'anything goes'.
I suppose you could always go with evolution, good ethical systems are whichever survive.

Why can't a man be worth a cheeseburger? :P
Because, to lower the value of man bellow absolute infinity, reduces the importance of conscienceness and ergo the requirement to treat men as ethics dictate.

The thoughts doesn't count, it is a poor gift. Thus it is a poor choice. The thought means the individual excists as a conscience being, however only their action can define themselves.So if someone always tries to do well, but for whatever reason always fails, he's simply a bad person? Or do you distinguish the action from the result? (i.e. a good action can sometimes have a bad consequence)

Utilitarian Unitarian Universalist. try saying that 3 times fast:p

Why is it inferior? That's rather the point. You can easily proof the earth is not in fact flat, but with ethics you don't have the luxury of experiments and observation.
Ethics often seems to be a choice, and a random one at that, determined by where you grow up.
Although there are claims of moral absolutism (like divine command, or categorical imperative).
I'm not really sure myself. I don't want to say my ethics are simply better than anyone else, but on the other hand I also don't want to say 'anything goes'.
I suppose you could always go with evolution, good ethical systems are whichever survive.
Do you believe slavery to be ethically sound? Do you beleive murder to be ethicaly sound? The reason these are universally unacceptable is because we as individuals now understand (better) the true value of human life. Any system that lowers the value of human life takes a step backward and must comfront these issues again.

Whilst I doubt my veiw will be true forever, but rather imagine it will be replaced by a superior system in the future -I do not believe there is any benefit in searching the sesspit of ideology in the hopes of finding the diamond of enlightenment.

So if someone always tries to do well, but for whatever reason always fails, he's simply a bad person? Or do you distinguish the action from the result? (i.e. a good action can sometimes have a bad consequence)
You have answered your own question. The action, not the result, is the value of the man. If I try to kill another person, but in the process cure cancer, I am not a better person because the result was good.

I win...?:D

I win...?:D
YES

here is a lifetime supply of opium and a job with the railroad

also *hangs a wreath on your penis*

YES

here is a lifetime supply of opium and a job with the railroad

also *hangs a wreath on your penis*
*does the penis dance*

I win...?:DThere was a contest? Maybe I shouldn't have gone to sleep then :P

Do you believe slavery to be ethically sound? Do you beleive murder to be ethicaly sound?I can imagine circumstances and conditions under which they are allowable, in certain forms. Although you can always change the definitions around and call it something else. War is murder, but it is sometimes necessary.
So let's say, I hold that there are circumstances under which killing are allowable, and under which taking someones freedom and forcing them to work is allowable. And also that you should try to avoid those circumstances.

The reason these are universally unacceptable is because we as individuals now understand (better) the true value of human life. Any system that lowers the value of human life takes a step backward and must confront these issues again.Not necessarily. You don't need to value something infinitely to value it above all other things, and there's no reason why you should do even that. Just fearing the same may in turn happen to you is reason enough to be against it, so you only need to value your own life.

And still, I'd like to think that if it came down to it, I'd sacrifice myself for the benefit of (sufficiently many) others. I value my own life, but not infinitely; just more than others' because it's mine.

Whilst I doubt my veiw will be true forever, but rather imagine it will be replaced by a superior system in the future -I do not believe there is any benefit in searching the sesspit of ideology in the hopes of finding the diamond of enlightenment.I think it might help to understand how people work, and that would allow you to make a more practical ethical system. High ideals are nice, but we're still only human.

I consider myself to be a utilitarian. Going for the most good cannot be bad? Can it?

I consider myself to be a utilitarian. Going for the most good cannot be bad? Can it?
Sometimes it sounds bad, but at least it's consistent :)

Whichever one covers "As long as it doesn't hurt yourself or others, go for it".

First, I was angry (read: intimidated) that I had to read so much, then I realized that you were from a different culture than I (read: less tired), and don't understand that complete and compound sentences don't occur where I live (read: big words are a no-no). And so, I gave you a chance, and then realize that your culture and ideas MEAN NOTHING! HAHAHAH!

Ethical Relativism and Nillhism, and I hope we can vote for two, not that your authority matters! :D

That was fun.

First, I was angry (read: intimidated) that I had to read so much, then I realized that you were from a different culture than I (read: less tired), and don't understand that complete and compound sentences don't occur where I live (read: big words are a no-no). And so, I gave you a chance, and then realize that your culture and ideas MEAN NOTHING! HAHAHAH!

Ethical Relativism and Nillhism, and I hope we can vote for two, not that your authority matters! :D

That was fun.
First I was afraid, I was petrified!
Kept thinking I could never live without you by my side!

First I was afraid, I was petrified!
Kept thinking I could never live without you by my side!
But then you walked, right out the door, never...
*insert music and correct lyrics*
changed the lock and key's, never love you any more....
*insert music and correct lyrics*

ROFL!

Sometimes it sounds bad, but at least it's consistent :)
Sometimes you have to do something that sounds horribly bad, to be truly good. If that makes sense. XD

Sometimes you have to do something that sounds horribly bad, to be truly good. If that makes sense. XD
Bad means to good ends...

As an angry berserker and his giant space hamster once said,

"You must break some eggs to make a rightous omlette!"

Bad means to good ends...

As an angry berserker and his giant space hamster once said,

"You must break some eggs to make a rightous omlette!"

HEY

don't quote us without crediting us by name

I'd like to see an easy quiz where you'd have example situations where you choose what you think is ethical under certain situations (the options would include rationale, naturally) and at the end it would tell you what is most likely driving your decisions

an easy way to introduce people like me, that is, uninformed about the ins and outs of ethics ( I missed philosophy on thursday, I'm sorry! :O ), to their own decision-making process :)

that would be cool

HEY

don't quote us without crediting us by name
Okay, fine...geez...Minsc and Boo, Minsc and Boo!

Okay, fine...geez...Minsc and Boo, Minsc and Boo!
thank you :)

not so much for our sake as for our agents'...they go nuts at any chance for publicity

gotta make the help comfortable, you know

I voted Divine and Virtue.
I am of course against the Hedonisim relativism and Deotonelological i couldnt really like because if someone shoots their mouth off at me they are entitled to a smack in the face as retribution.

I'll give you each one guess! First one who guesses correctly will get a golden cookie. That shouldn't take long! :rolleyes:

I subscribe to Moderate Nihilism, that is that the concept of society is an idea created by -and supported by- the continued tolerance of it by the individual. This said, the individual is most important building block of moralty, society & divinity, all of which are contructs of the individual fancy.

You describe a moderate brand of Libertarianism, not Nihilism. Nihilism doesn't have much to say about ethics.. or anything at all for that matter. A Moderate eithical nihilist would be someone who only partially agrees that ethics exist at all. Nihilism is a cute idea, but not very useful.

To those how choose Divine command ethics; do you think something is right because God wants it, or that God wants something because it's right?
Does ethics transcend even God? Or are we simply subject to his/her whims?

To those how choose Divine command ethics; do you think something is right because God wants it, or that God wants something because it's right?
Does ethics transcend even God? Or are we simply subject to his/her whims?
What God wants must be right even if it over rules someone who believes in relativisim.

What God wants must be right even if it over rules someone who believes in relativisim.Assuming for a moment that it is. Is what he wants right because he wants it? Or does he want it because it's right?
Can God change what is right simply by wanting something else, by changing his mind. Or would he be wrong to suddenly declare you should murder people and covet your neighbours' wife and drown kittens and kicks puppies.

(Simply stating that God wouldn't do such a thing, doesn't change that there's a fundamental problem)

To those how choose Divine command ethics; do you think something is right because God wants it, or that God wants something because it's right?
Does ethics transcend even God? Or are we simply subject to his/her whims?
Whenever I get into a discussion of God with christian friends, one of the first things to come out is "the pot calling the kettle black" or something like that. Watching Young Frankenstein last night reminded me that nobody has any right to dictate policy to us merely because they created us. That is, I am completely justified in asking whether God is perfect or not. Barring faith, none of us are going to get an answer to that :P

So for believers in a perfect God, the answer is clear. God's perfect, so He knows better!

For others, the answer is also clear. Who the hell knows?! XD

I'm along the lines of a utilitarian hedonist. With some nihilism thrown in for good measure.

As for the "Kill one to save five?" dilemma on the first page: Yes. It's the only sensible thing to do. Unless the one is one of my friends; then no. Then I'd happily kill the five to save the one, or even more than that if necessary.

Of course the value of human life is comparable. You can be utilitarian and compare them based on how much they cost to keep versus how much they produce, or some other metric; I prefer valuing them based on how much happiness they have brought me. As such, my friends are more valuable than any number of people I've had no (or unfavourable) dealings with.

Given the terms defined by the OP I would say a relativist (rule) utilitarian with rules based on objectively defined categorical imperatives instead of 'happiness'.

Assuming for a moment that it is. Is what he wants right because he wants it? Or does he want it because it's right?
Can God change what is right simply by wanting something else, by changing his mind. Or would he be wrong to suddenly declare you should murder people and covet your neighbours' wife and drown kittens and kicks puppies.

(Simply stating that God wouldn't do such a thing, doesn't change that there's a fundamental problem)
Yes