Question

Consider two types of consequentialist moral reasoning: utilitarianism and moral egoism. Consider also two types of non-consequentialist moral reasoning: virtue ethics and deontology. Which of these systems, if any, do you find most reasonable? Why?

Answer 1

Consequentialism is a moral theory that states the consequences of one's actions are the basis for any mortality or judgement towards that action. These two types of consequentalism (utilitarianism and moral/ethical egoism) focuses on the outcome of the conduct as the primary motivation of that action. The former focuses on the idea of the greater good which means, utilitarianism puts more emphasis on the consequences and decisions should be made based on happiness for the greatest number of people whereas the latter holds the moral conduct ought to be judged through self-interest.

Virtue ethics does not judge a person as good or based upon the single action in their lives. It takes a look over time to judge one's character. In addition to this, it takes at past mistakes that are not normally in a person's historical nature. Deontology judges the morality of an action based on rules such as ethical naturalism, religious law, or based on a set of personal or cultural values. It is exactly the opposite of utilitarianism when it comes to the explanations of its concepts.

In my view, consequentalism is primarily non-prescriptive, meaning the moral worth of an action is determined by its potential consequences, not by whether it follows a set of rules or written laws while non-consequentalism have some rules and moral duty as a central core which helps to determine the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character rather than the outcomes of the conduct.