Consistency in morality

[ImaginalDisc]

But I don't think any moralist has seriously proposed a complete "all-encompassing rubric that will answer all moral decisions in all situations"; they tend to propose rubric frameworks (such as utilitarianism).

I think you're crediting philosophers with more humility than is apparant in their writing. Kant, Hume, and all the Ancient Stoics were quite adamant. Socrates in particular was ready to die for his philosophical convictions. Clearly, he intended for us to take them seriously. If philosophers were confident that common sense should rule the day whenever a conflict between their philosophies and one's gut instinct conflict they wouldn't have been philosophers in the first place.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

But I don't think any moralist has seriously proposed a complete "all-encompassing rubric that will answer all moral decisions in all situations"; they tend to propose rubric frameworks (such as utilitarianism).

For Mill I would completely agree. For Kant I would not. He was looking for a categorical imperative.

For the rest, we are essentially saying the same thing. Utilitarianism must be interpreted within a context. We haven't found a context in which it does not produce moral decisions with which most of us cannot live. Is it possible that another context may solve this issue? Sure, it is possible, which is why I asked the initial question "what would a framework look like that runs deeper than typical utilitarianism or deontology (in other words, the typical contexts)?" There must be some rubric by which we decide to use consequentialist or duty-based/fairness criteria in particular situations.