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

Below is an absolutely accurate answer I am writing.

I find Consequentialist moral reasoning more reasonable because in it it has -

1) utilitarianism

2) Moral egoism

And In utilitarianism as a hypothesis captivated with the principle that "activities are directly in extent as they're going to generally advance joy, peripheral as they're going to generally turn out the turn of satisfaction."

utilitarianism harmonizes with "characteristic" suppositions that begin from people's social nature. during this manner, if society somehow happened to carry onto doctrine as an ethic, people would ordinarily disguise these measures as ethically official. Plant contends that joy is that the sole premise of profound quality, which people ne'er need something besides elation.

Moral egoism is the normative theory that the advancement of one's own good is in agreement with morality. within the solid variant, it's control that it is always moral to advance one's own good, and it's never moral not to advance it.

Where as in

deontological ethics or deontology is the regularizing ethical hypothesis that the moral quality of an activity got to be supported on whether or not that activity itself is right or wrong underneath a progression of rules, as against dependent on the results of the action.

Thanks