In Baase's book (Baase) there is a distinction between deontological theories (or nonconsequentialist) and consequentialist theories. They differ in the way they approach actions. Consequentialist theories categorize an action as good or bad depending on the consequences it has. Deontological theories have a set of rules that a person shall follow in order to be ethical. We can think of that like having a check-off list. If one passes all bullets successfully, then he is ethical otherwise he isn't, or at least he is less ethical than he could be. Duty and rules are main elements of deontological theories. People shall follow these rules no matter the consequences they might have. These theories share a common background that is based on three…show more content… There were persons that used such theories to serve their scope. Some misused it in the name of God. Today, it is rather difficult to accept one-way rules, especially if they were created a long time ago. Rules that have their origins in holy books are hard to change, but there are many people that have started to question them. They say that many of those rules were created to serve a specific scope of that time and can't be applied at every society and occasion. I believe that a theory more tied up with the consequences that they may have is a friendlier approach to how we think today of ethics. On the other hand, consequential theories are based on the doctrine that the ethicality of our actions is tied up with the consequences that this may have. Such a consequential theory is the Utilitarianism. Its main scope is to increase happiness (Baase). If a person's action increases the overall happiness (or utility), then this action is right. The impact of actions is the key player in these theories. The main problem with such theories is determining in full all the consequences that an action might have. The qualification of an action is problematic