Assignment task: I find the consequentialist approach to be the most reasonable theory of moral reasoning. This is because the theory takes into account the outcomes of actions, and aims to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
A clear example of this would be a situation where a doctor is deciding whether or not to perform a life-saving surgery on a patient. The doctor would weigh the benefits of the surgery (saving the patient's life) against the risks (the patient may die on the operating table). If the benefits outweigh the risks, then the doctor would go ahead with the surgery.
Would you prefer to know that (say if you were the one who needed the surgery) to be able to intrust in someone (in this case a surgeon) who reasons as a non consequentialist who would do right no matter what? Someone that can make the call whether to keep you alive, or give up and call it in on the basis of strictly doing good, no matter what the outcome is for him? Say the patient in the OR room is not going to make it (and they are an organ donor) and the doctor already did all he could, but then there is a kid next door who is going to die if he doesn't get a particular organ, but the patient in the OR can save a life even if that means losing their own, and the doctors call is to do right no matter the consequence then what?
Does your moral reasoning change, or does it stay the same?