What is the difference between the two? Well first consequentialist and categorical viewpoints are both different types of morales. Consequentialist moral reasoning has to do with the consequences of what will happen. Categorical moral reasoning has to do with the actions. Let's break it down with an example.Let's say that it's immoral to lie. If you were to hide innocent refugees in your basement and the police knocked on your door looking for the,, would it be moral for you to lie?The categorical moral reasoning may lead somebody to say 'no'. The action of lying is immoral, so it's wrong. In other words, there is the morale of remaining honest. Consequential moral reasoning may lead somebody to say 'yes'. By lying, you are saving lies, so it's morally ok. I'd say I have more of a consequentialist viewpoint because at the end of the day if someone needs help I let my emotions take over and will probably help them not taking into account whether it's for the greater good. For example if our school was being raided and someone was locked out the room I would probably open the door risking everyone else in the room to help the one student locked out. I don't act taking into account social norms if I feel they are wrong, I don't act because “it's the right thing to do”. I think I have my own morals and yes perhaps they are learnt or inherited by the way my parents have raised me and that may also sometimes change. For example I wouldn't ignore the law risking getting arrested. I act respecting the social laws but do act with my own mind and morales.
Reply
Leave a Reply.
Author
Sixteen year old girl studying the IB course in Raha International School Abu Dhabi.
RSS Feed