What are your ethical views?

[Andro_USYD]

Hello everyone,
I'm currently studying philosophy and computer science at a distinguished university, and we're delving into ethics in my philosophy class. I'm curious to learn about your ethical perspectives. To make this accessible to everyone, including those who may not be familiar with some of the terms, I'll provide a brief explanation of each view within the poll. Please select the ethical stance you identify with the most. If you'd like, you can also share a comment below, such as "I'm a consequentialist who values all life, including animal life." I'm really looking forward to seeing your responses and engaging in some insightful discussions. Thank you for participating!

To give an example to help you choose, imagine you're given 1000$, would you prevent human suffering (broadly consequentialist), keep it for yourself assuming you have money still (broadly egotist), give it to support your impact on the earth for future generations (broadly deontological). 2 votes maximum are allowed.

Edit: You can google these positions if you don't understand them and find your view, not enough space to put much writing inside the boxes lol

 

[SpiritualDeath]

Sentientism. Negative utilitarianism (other forms of negative consequentialist ethics are also appealing to me).

 

[Eudaimonic]

I am also a sentientist. My ethical views align most closely with negative lexical hedonistic utilitarianism (albeit, without pure consequentialism since I think a rights-based approach should be taken; also, I do not entirely agree with hedonism, as I believe that harm can occur without suffering being consciously felt). It's lexical because I believe that certain states of suffering are so bad that no number of lesser states of suffering could ever outweigh them in disvalue. I am undecided as to whether I think positive forms of value exist, or if tranquilism is correct that undisturbedness is the hedonic ceiling (as Simon Knutsson puts it). I believe that there's a marked asymmetry between suffering and happiness, such that suffering is always worse than happiness is good. I believe that the world is in a perpetual axiological deficit, as no amount of happiness can interpersonally outweigh any suffering. I am an antinatalist and subscribe to the procreation and axiological asymmetries. I believe an expected value approach should be taken for beings of uncertain sentience. However, I don't believe that suffering or happiness can each be straightforwardly added as many classical or negative utilitarians believe. I believe that nature is an ethical disaster and that working toward ending or (practically speaking) at the very least mitigating wild animal suffering is a moral imperative given its incomprehensibly vast scope. I think that the failure to recognize this is due to belief in an action-inaction asymmetry as many deontological views posit, scope neglect, and a naturalistic fallacy, among others. Of course, I also believe that all forms of animal exploitation, and chiefly factory farming, that involve suffering (essentially all of them) are deeply unethical and ought to be abolished. Some of my favorite philosophers are David Pearce (I am partial to Pearce's hedonistic imperative, or something akin to it), Magnus Vinding, and Simon Knutsson.