No. The alignment system is largely a hold-over from early D&D that was evolved into it's own new beast, separate from it's original inspirations. Oddly, the D&D alignment system is well-known even outside of RPG circles as a simple method of describing ethical caractitures.

In OD&D it was theoretically tied to the forces of Law/Good, Evil/Chaos, and Balance, which warred constantly in what was called the 'Cosmic War', though many people, myself included, have never played the game that way or had a campaign world with that kind of set up.

In game (in 1st through 3rd edition D&D), I always tell my players (or ask my GM) what ethical system we will be using for the campaign. I have played with multiple different implementations of all the ethical starting points you mention, as well as other, and they all work quite well. Utilitarianism tends to make for a bleak, awful existence as man's alignment and ultimate fate is a matter of luck. Deontology works well, and can generally just fade into the background if you don't want to focus on alignment too much. Virtue ethics is awesome and totally captures the medieval genre and feel. Psychological Egoism is hilarious.

The point I'm trying to make here is that once upon a time it was initially kinda grounded in a particular fantastical ethical system, but then it stopped being that way for a long time. Furthermore, the way it evolved was a good thing and allows you to tie it easily to any ethical system you'd like in your particular game world. Some particularly strange and poorly thought out systems-- like moral relativism-- don't work very well, but the systems you listed and many others are fully compatible with all editions of D&D up to but not including 4e.

5e and 4e have decided Law=Good and Chaos=Bad, and thus are a little different. This sort-of re-grounds them in the original inspirations for the system, but because people are no longer familiar with the particular tropes necessary to engage with the game in that alignment system it usually just ends up either ignored or Hobbesian. Certainly the Law=Ultimate Good thing supports a Hobbesian approach.

No. The alignment system is largely a hold-over from early D&D that was evolved into it's own new beast, separate from it's original inspirations. Oddly, the D&D alignment system is well-known even outside of RPG circles as a simple method of describing ethical caractitures.

In OD&D it was theoretically tied to the forces of Law/Good, Evil/Chaos, and Balance, which warred constantly in what was called the 'Cosmic War', though many people, myself included, have never played the game that way or had a campaign world with that kind of set up.

In game (in 1st through 3rd edition D&D, and I will also 5e if I ever play it again and use the actual alignment system), I always tell my players (or ask my GM) what ethical system we will be using for the campaign. I have played with multiple different implementations of all the ethical starting points you mention, as well as other, and they all work quite well. Utilitarianism tends to make for a bleak, awful existence as man's alignment and ultimate fate is a matter of luck (and skill, but that just makes it worse). Deontology works well, and can generally just fade into the background if you don't want to focus on alignment too much. Virtue ethics is awesome and totally captures the medieval genre and feel. Psychological Egoism is hilarious.

The point I'm trying to make here is that once upon a time it was initially kinda grounded in a particular fantastical ethical system, but then it stopped being that way. Furthermore, the way it evolved was a good thing and allows you to tie it easily to any ethical system you'd like in your particular game world. Some particularly strange and poorly thought out systems-- like moral relativism-- don't work very well, but the systems you listed and many others are fully compatible with all editions of D&D (not including 4e).

4e decided Law=Good and Chaos=Bad, and thus is a little different. This sort-of re-grounds it in the original inspirations for the system, but because people are no longer familiar with the particular tropes necessary to engage with the game in that alignment system it usually just ends up either ignored or Hobbesian. Certainly the Law=Ultimate Good thing supports a Hobbesian approach.