Superior moral system: Best two out of three

The most well-known moral systems are deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.

Consequentialism holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.

Virtue ethics emphasizes certain ideals, such as excellence or dedication to the common good, toward which we should strive and which allow the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what we as human beings have the potential to become.

According to PhilPapers, there's no clear consensus among philosophers on whether we should accept deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics. Hence, I propose a new moral system: best two out of three. It's exactly what it sounds like. You evaluate a moral dilemma using all three of these systems and take the best two out of three.

The neat thing about best two out of three is that you can resolve any moral dilemma and you have a 2/3 chance of being correct. I'm also hard-pressed to think of a case where our intuitions about what is moral and immoral conflict with the best two out of three system. An even better approach might be to add additional moral frameworks such as rights-based ethics, or dividing consequentialism into population utilitarianism and average utilitarianism. Then you can take best 6/11 or something.

The most accurate election predictors tend to use a weighted average of estimates from different sources rather than relying on one source alone. Best two out of three is to philosophy what 538 is to elections.

Assigning objective truths as moral values is valid over arguing morality is objective.

Regardless of the type of systems because an individual may prefer this and that so it's subjectively operated and we argue and converse over which is better .

At the end of it, we use truth of reality to help us mobilize within in it, operate in it making decisions deciding what to do and not do to operate and continue to operate.

People may call it ethics still, right and wrong . That gets back into arguing why this is moral or not. 

There are only 3 things in this world:

1. Goals

2. Path to achieve goals

3. Will to take the path to achieve goals

I guess one can be focused on creating perfect morality, but I never really found myself agreeing with any popular moral system. I could simply say that the only moral system I agree with is subjective morality, because it would take too much work to create a moral system which suits my goals, as there would be too many goals to place in proper order of priority.

And then of course would be the question if many goals of low priority can outweigh one goal of high priority, as I think that maybe such situation can happen.

Possibly the only moral system which I can find myself agreeing with the most would be survival of society as a whole, survival of the group.

I think its the most simple to understand system, as all what you have to do is wonder if your action harms the survival of your society, and then you will likely get a clear answer quickly.

For the regular people, the best moral system is survival of society.

Basically, any action such as smoking or choosing not to reproduce clearly harms society, so its simple enough to follow.

Of course, it still suffers from the problem where people think that they are helping society, but are actually harming it, but every moral system suffers from similar problem, where people think that they are achieving one thing, but are actually achieving the opposite.

Its the problem with lack of knowledge, so any moral system naturally suffers from it as no human has omniscience to know all about achieving the goal.

are you perhaps familiar with HUME'S GUILLOTINE ?

Is it a problem that deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics are more as categories,

Than individual reasons?

(I 'think they are more category than individual reasons)

A person could think of 100 reasons in one category, then 1 and 1 in the other two.

The problem for me, is that there seem to be pretty big number of 'reasons one can have for an action, I won't say infinite, but a lot.

. . .

Or a person could also think of a reason to, and a reason not, in each category.

. .

Nope