Overview
I'm working on a philosophy discussion question and need a sample draft to help me learn.
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.