Morality

This is the 100th post on this blog, and to celebrate I would like input from whatever number of people read it.

I have a question.

How do you resolve arguments between competing moral systems without a prior moral system to evaluate them by?

So, in the development of a personal ethical system, there can be a choice between a utilitarian ethic and a deontological rights based ethic. Each of them uses different arguments to determine why someone should follow a particular moral schema. But, neither of them can make a determinate claim to being ethical without presupposing some other grounds to evaluate on. For instance, if utilitarianism is good because it treats all people as equal, this supposes that equal treatment has intrinsic moral worth. This claim may be justified by the argument that formal equality prevents large scale violence, but then we're moving in circles.

What grounds you at your fundamental humanity that allows you to construct moral claims or schema?

Duncan