Divine command ethics vs reason-based deontological ethics vs vitual ethics vs ethical relativism?

Answer 1

Assuming you are asking what the difference between the three, Divine command ethics is the idea that all ethics are handed down from a supreme being to humans. This set of ethics includes everything that is right/wrong in the particular religion of the person in question.

Reason-based deontological ethics are ethics based on obligations, such as the obligation to pay your taxes, to tell the truth, etc. Most ethics based on this system are derived from what benefits the society and the ideals of the society in question, leaving some of what is covered by divine command ethics up to the individuals opinion.

An example of the differences between the two would be that in divine command ethics based off of Christianity, homosexuality is strictly wrong. In reason-based ethics, using the definition of society as simply a group of people, homosexuality is a question left to the person's opinions as it does not violate any obligations a person may have. Another example would be the question of divorce. In divine command ethics based off of Christianity, divorce is wrong. In Reason based ethics, as the act of divorce, if not the associated ordeals, harms no person, it does not violate any obligations a person may have, assuming that the society has a method in place for divorce.

Ethical Relativism isn't so much a system of ethics as the idea that ethics change depending on the situation. Using this as an argument, one can claim that an act such as killing another person is not unethical if they are from a faction (country, tribe, religion, etc) that is at war with them. Ethical relativism is also applied in the idea of self-defense, as it is considered fine to harm a person if their actions jeopardize the safety of others. An extreme example of this would be the claim that stealing is no longer unethical if it is the only way for a person to survive.