There are three main perspectives of moral reasoning and the first one I will cover is consequentialism. Consequentialism is a theory that the moral value of a certain act will be determined by its consequences, so the word “consequence” is within consequentialism. The quote commonly used to present the idea of ​​consequentialism is “the ends justify the means”. What the quote says is that whatever action you take in a situation does not determine whether you are a good person or not. It's the results that really matter and determine everything. Consequentialism comes in many forms, and some may not even have a name. A popular form of consequentialism is utilitarianism. The Main Focus of Consequentialism and UtilitarianismUnlike consequentialism, deontology focuses solely on a person's action and not on consequences. In Deontology you basically always have to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do and avoid things that are considered bad. Some of the universal rules followed by deontologists are; 1. It is wrong to kill innocents. 2. Stealing is wrong. 3. It is wrong to tell lies. These are some of them, but the list goes on from there. In Deontology you cannot justify your action by showing its positive outcome. It doesn't matter whether the outcome will be positive or negative because you have to make sure that what you are doing is morally right. For example, if you had two friends and they bought to date but Friend B cheated on Friend A, what would be the right thing to do? If you didn't say anything, you would basically be lying to friend A and it would be the wrong thing to do even if she ended up not being hurt and continuing with the relationship. Even if you crushed Friend A's heart, it would still be considered doing the right thing. A famous deontological philosopher was Immanuel Kant. He believed that the consequence of an action did not provide an accurate demonstration of a person's good will. Good and bad consequences can occur unexpectedly, so a person's goodwill cannot be guided only by a consequence of what happens. For example, if two men got drunk on a Friday night and Man A ended up colliding with an innocent pedestrian while the other man got home safely. Both men decided to get drunk, but Man A was unlucky and killed someone that night. Since man A killed someone and man B didn't, that doesn't mean man B is better than man A. They both made the wrong choice, but one of them was unlucky, and it's for this is that basing moral reasoning on consequences would be inaccurate from the point of view of deontologists. Kant also believed that we