APA Style Reply

I’m studying for my Writing class and need an explanation.

Critical Reasoning

Two types of consequentialist moral reasoning Discussion Prompt Reply to each Peer

Two types of consequentialist moral reasoning Discussion Reply 1 Lynne: (Answer to my post /question from fellow peer)


At first, I too felt the utilitarianism perspective seemed the most reasonable; however, after exploring Virtue Ethics, I found it to be the most reasonable.I’m wondering about your input on Virtue Ethics which focuses not on what to do, but how to be: a person of good character.


Two types of consequentialist moral reasoning Discussion Reply 2 Shavell:

Moral Reasoning

The system that I find most reasonable is the non-consequentialist moral reasoning: virtue ethics and deontology, my choice for this decision is due to, with moral consequentialist, utilitarianism and moral egoism your actions are considered okay regardless, if your actions are wrong towards the next personal, or wrong in morals, if they benefit with the outcome of the majority of people around you, you actions and decisions will be considered good, okay, even though it’s not good, helpful, or beneficial towards others. The same concept is considered when you are discussing moral egoism, instead of thinking of everyone around you, you’re only thinking of “self” and how something will benefit you as a person. With non-consequential moral reasoning virtue ethics, and deontology, it’s the complete opposite regarding your decision making concept, with virtue ethics you’re not only thinking of yourself, your considering the best outcome of the situation, mentally, with sense and honesty, and with deontology you’re considering the best choice and considering the choice that you make to produce the best choice as an obligation to help everyone, presenting this as a moral duty as a person, along with it this choice and an obligation.

Submit a Comment