You probably noticed by now that I don’t subscribe to pragmatism or utilitarianism in ethics. I do get the attraction, however. It does seem easier. But I don’t think it can achieve anything more than assessing or justifying the rationality of behaviour AFTER the fact. — Possibility

In other words, "anything more than" learning (developing more adaptive habits) – a feature in my book, not a bug.

You probably noticed by now that I don’t subscribe to pragmatism or utilitarianism in ethics. I do get the attraction, however. It does seem easier. But I don’t think it can achieve anything more than assessing or justifying the rationality of behaviour AFTER the fact.
— Possibility
In other words, "anything more than" learning (developing more adaptive habits) – a feature in my book, not a bug. — 180 Proof

I didn’t say it was a bug - my point is that it lacks accuracy, but I get that may not be a value for you. Justifying past behaviour offers little learning by way of developing more adaptive habits. All behaviour occurs within a social and emotional context, rendering the mere rationality of past behaviour an inaccurate account of the reasoning behind it.

You probably noticed by now that I don’t subscribe to pragmatism or utilitarianism in ethics. I do get the attraction, however. It does seem easier. But I don’t think it can achieve anything more than assessing or justifying the rationality of behaviour AFTER the fact. — Possibility

Actually, pragmatism and utilitarianism are very consequentialist, so I don't see how else to asses the moral worth of an action rather than after the fact with those two rationale's.

Human behaviour is by definition a manifestation of an ethic, which is a specific instantiation of ethics. In other words, all behaviour is ethical (or unethical) as the case may be; all behaviour is interpretable in ethical terms. Isn't it? — Pantagruel

I believe that every behavior can be interpreted as ethical but we aren't bound to be ethical at all times. Unless, they're in the military or something.

All behaviour occurs within a social and emotional context, rendering the mere rationality of past behaviour an inaccurate account of the reasoning behind it. — Possibility

I do believe you are right about the incongruence between social and emotional contexts; but, I think the issue isn't overdetermined by those factors.

I believe that every behavior can be interpreted as ethical but we aren't bound to be ethical at all times. Unless, they're in the military or something. — Shawn

I guess my take is that people are always being ethical. Even when they fail to be ethical, they are manifesting an ethic, just not what we construe as a positive one. Realizing this can be a strong motivator to reflect and perhaps to begin to try to enact a more healthy ethic.

You probably noticed by now that I don’t subscribe to pragmatism or utilitarianism in ethics. I do get the attraction, however. It does seem easier. But I don’t think it can achieve anything more than assessing or justifying the rationality of behaviour AFTER the fact.
— Possibility

Actually, pragmatism and utilitarianism are very consequentialist, so I don't see how else to asses the moral worth of an action rather than after the fact with those two rationale's. — Shawn

Not with those two rationales, of course. I think my highlighting ‘after’ may have confused things. This focus on assessing the moral worth of an action is where the inaccuracy in terms of ethics lies, precisely because an action or behaviour can only be morally evaluated in its social and emotional context. The moral worth of a future action will always be relative.

I think the question of ‘should I become something I am not?’ cannot be answered by consequentialism, because it isn’t about an action, nor an evaluation, but rather an overall perception of potentiality. We’re not really asking about the moral worth of an action here, but how one perceives the value of change itself. The reality is that I will become something I am not regardless - ethics being more than merely action. Ethics is about understanding and refining our conceptual structures of value and potential, which direct all our changes in effort and attention, regardless of whether or not we act. In this context, pragmatism or utilitarianism as reductionist methodologies are only one aspect of a much broader understanding of change.

The question might be rephrased as: what is the best use of my limited resources of effort and attention in terms of change? It won’t produce eternal statements of law and order, but I think it may gradually help to determine a more ethical life, regardless of whether we agree on values, or what our individual capacity may be.