[Master Mind]

I'm a virtue ethicist.

[Spades]

Meta-ethical moral relativism.

[Angelic Gardevoir]

I suppose I align with virtue ethics in general, but I intellectually realize that relativism is what probably makes the most sense. I'm weeeiiiirrrdddd...

WHAT IF I'M WATCHING MYTHBUSTERS?

Yay Mythbusters! :D

[runnerveran]

Error theorist (similar to, but distinct from moral relativism).

[Sayonara]

As an ISFP none of them resonate with me at all...closest would probably be virtue though.

Consequentialism is way too harsh, and Deontological ways have never sat well with me. I have my own moral compass, that's all I feel I really need.

[Saira]

Consequentialism is a legitimate moral philosophy? What type would believe in that, ENTJ? About the only situation I'd condone it is in attacking something evil. I prefer deontological or virtue ethics, and I'd rather take a silly self-test than try to choose between the two.

Why wouldn't it be legitimate? I see nothing wrong with it. It makes lots of sense. Life is about surviving. You need to fight for it and do whatever needs to be done for that greater cause. In my opinion, morals evolved because they are useful, they help us survive in a group. Loyalty, for example, is considered a virtue not because it is a part of some transcendent moral order, but because it helps mates stay and raise children together, thus increasing their chances of survival. Morals like these are ingrained so deeply in our minds that we started thinking they are a world independent from us when it's just a useful adaptation method. Consequentialism doesn't mean immorality. At its best, it simply considers actions as good not from a subjective point of view but objectively. Individuals don't matter but humanity and life in general does. It works for future, survival and advancement of humanity as a whole. Of course, there are many other consequentialist theories that are very individualistic. Egoism is not exactly the best way to go (but it still makes sense; deep inside, we're all just selfish animals).

[JungyesMBTIno]

I heavily doubt there's any correlation. Morality is more complex related (as in, psychological complex), culturally related, and even persona related than type related - oh, and how can I forget conscience. Depending on your upbringing and personal experiences, any morality might arise in anyone. And even then, morality can change, and morality itself is a fairly vaguely defined concept over many fields of thought. But the way most people typically think of morality is from the perspective of a moral complex, essentially. I know a lot of Fi dominants with highly different types of morality from one another (after all, every Fi dom often has a very individualistic Fi outlook from every other, which can certainly bleed into morality).

[Mr Canis]

Based upon the Wikipedia articles and the descriptions in this thread, I come closest to "Consequentialism", though it's not an exact match.

[cranberryplains]

I'm a consequentalist, but I syill think that dropping the heavy object of a building would be morally objectionalble, because there is a chance it could have killed someone, and at the time, you have no clue as to whether it would kill someone or not. So, based off the possible consequences, dropping the object would be a bad deed.

[FreeBeer]

I go with what I feel is right. Its that simple. No rules, no theories. My conscience guides me.

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human commits actions that go against his/her moral values and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are or should be based in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.

If we wish to make it theory, then I'll have to agree with @Spades, even if it isn't exactly that.