Discussion Forum PHIL

Consider two types moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved).

  • Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why?
  • Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking.

In responses to at least two peers, check their work. Were their explanations and examples clear and accurate? Identify any problems/errors in their logic or explain why you agree with their rationale. Make sure your responses are substantive and contribute extra to the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>