Ethics! What a pain!

So I am coming to the conclusion that in my study of ethics one thing is becoming clear. For an ethical theory to be sound it has to be based on an absolute good. Almost always a metaphysical good. Any ethical theory based purely on human characteristics such as Hume's individual concepts of reason and sentiment or anything based on Utilitarianism becomes bogged down by relativity. This is because there is no absolute. The largest problem with this is that it means you have to be accepting of an absolute that is sometimes unprovable. I do want to say that I think it is possible for utilitarianism to work, but it has to be limited in scope, which is almost impossible in a world like ours where it is so easy for social groups to become interconnected and effect each other. So that leaves the opposite, expanding it to include in scope everything, so it would have to apply on a global scale, which leads to two issues in my mind. First the social implications are massive in scope simply because human beings congregate into groups and the only way for this to work is to view the human race as a whole with no separation, and that is impossible given human nature. The second is the difficulty in determining with the certainty the sum of a utilitarian equation for an action when considering a global scale. Both of these issues make such a concept completely unrealistic.

The closest anyone comes to avoiding this issue, that I have read, is Immanuel Kant. However I have run into two primary issues with his ethical theory I cannot answer. First is a logical issue, Kant states the following:

The only thing that is good without qualification is a good will.

That statement does not logically work. This is because it contradicts itself. The thing that is good with out qualification has a qualification. Good is a qualification of will in that statement, so it does not make sense. The second issue I am having with his theory has to do with what ethics is supposed to be. The study of ethics is at it's core the study of how to live a good life. So accepting this we examine Kant's theory and in it he puts forth the goal of a good life is to follow duties. There are certain duties that are the most important. However the duty to pursue happiness is not one of them. So this allows for a scenario in which if one follows their duties correctly one is not happy. I cannot define a good life if it lacks in happiness, or denies the importance of pursuing happiness. It seems that Kant's ethical theory relies on a sense that this life is not the end, but rather a means. It reminds me too much of Christian ideals regarding life being an imposition one has to get through to reach Heaven. So yeah... good times.

Music time!