Would you describe your approach to morality as consequentialist, nonconsequentialist, or some combination of both?
What reasons do you have for adopting this particular approach?
Consequentialist theories suggest that an action is good or bad depending upon the consequences it has . If the consequences are good then the action is considered to be good and vice versa. Whereas the nonconsequentialist theory of morality suggest that no matter the consequences are good or bad it is the action that is good or bad .
I think both the thories are inportant and valuable. Sometimes you have to do something that is good for you and may hav bad effect on others. If there is benefit to you for example being selected in an organization . Others may get rejected which will be bad for them but because of that you got the opportunity . So in this case the consequences are good for you but not for others but still its a good action . Therefore both the theories are equally valuable depending upon the situations and environment.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.