Replies to Week 8 Discussion
Reply to Tammy McNamara
Hello, Tammy! I like the way you have described how both systems are reasonable. I agree with you that non-consequentialism of moral reasoning is most reasonable. This is a form of normative ethical theory that denies the notion that wrongness or rightfulness of people’s conduct is solely determined by badness or goodness of the results of our acts or rules to which these acts conform. From this statement that describes non-consequentialism of moral reasoning, I think it illustrates how our acts determine our acts. Initially, I found it difficult to understand how this moral reasoning is linked to our acts.
Reply to Martina Therese Villar
Excellent post, Therese! I found your discussion interesting since you have described how both types of moral reasoning have equal significance. Based on utilitarianism, I think both reasonings will be vital since this theory focuses on the determination of right from wrong by looking at the outcomes. Generally, the non-consequentialism of moral reasoning is the closest to utilitarianism based on your argument. The two are closely related as they emphasize the consequences that are good to most people. Therefore, I agree with your opinion that ethical egoism is most reasonable since most of the actions we are doing are aimed at promoting one’s self-interest.
Reply to Jaypearl Macalalad
Hello, Jaypearl! After reading your discussion, your opinion is fascinating, especially regarding your choice of non-consequentialist moral reasoning of virtue ethics and deontology. This moral reasoning indeed is more of personal practice. One thing which is clear from this moral reasoning is the need to be true to ourselves. Besides, most of the issues we deal in our daily lives revolve around our selves. Between the two reasonings, non-consequentialist moral reasoning of virtue ethics and deontology is the most relevant to our everyday experiences. Therefore, your choice is right as far as the two reasonings are concerned.