The Ethics term that I agree with to the greatest extent is consequentialism. I like that there is not some ultimate rule for everything and that the outcome is based upon each different situation. It can be very good because it can give people security to try and do things that would be of greater benefit and not have to worry about the small details surrounding if the thing that they did was “bad” (saved someones life but broke their leg in the process), but it can also be unclear as there is a lot of grey space in the areas between the actions and their situations. Someone could do the right thing, but then how they did it was more than what was needed, or someone could have been doing something bad, but then it ended up being fine because of the situation (they were not meaning to do the good thing it turned out to be). If someone was riding their bike and they were going to hit a person walking on the side and someone pushed the biker over instead of the person out of the way, the biker would be in much more pain than if the person was pushed out of the way. It is fine because it stopped the biker from running over the person but there was a better and less pain inflicting way to do it. For the other reason I don’t agree with it, if someone robbed a store (shop lifted) and someone outside the store mugged them, without knowing they shop lifted, and someone saw that happen or the people of the store were there, the mugger could say that he saw the person stealing and was trying to get the items that the person took back.

When I would read the other examples of the terms of ethics, I would aways agree with some aspects of it, and if not agree, at least understand where they are coming from, but with consequentialism, I found that for most scenarios, as long as there was a set of rules and a moral judgement of the actions, that a society would be able to run well under the ethical mindset of consequentialism.