A summary is out of place because of the outlinish nature of the presentation. I have presented a taxonomy or general theory of ethics. The view is acceptable or not depending on how well it competes with rival theories. One thing that hinders such a comparison is the absence of sufficiently clearly articulated rivals. Perhaps this paper will stimulate the production of some rival views.

A normative ethical theory provides a means of arriving at justified moral and value judgments. A clear example of such a theory is J. S. Mill's utilitarianism. When Mill, or any authors, attempt to justify these normative ethical theories they provide meta-ethical arguments. Any attempted justification of the meta-arguments, or the methods they employ, is at the meta-philosophical level and are parceled out to their proper level, thus revealing Mill's full ethical theory. Bernard Rosen argues Mill's critics and supporters address (...) one level or another, often without noting which one it is. The positions of important ethical theorists who have been influenced by, or who criticize Mill are presented. They include A. Sidgwick, G. E. Moore, William James, M. Schlick, A. J. Ayer, R. M. Hare, C. L. Stevenson, William Frankena, and John Dewey. Along the way, a thoroughgoing, pragmatic ethical theory at every level, is set out and defended. (shrink)

I have attempted to present a meta-theory for ethical theories which naturally fits in with a general pragmatic philosophical orientation. There are standard problems for such philosophical views to which I have tried to offer solutions. In addition to the meta-theory one would like to see an actual ethical theory which would exemplify that meta-theory, but that is a topic more appropriate for another time.