A consequentialist approach to ethics is an approach that claims that the morality of an action depends on its outcome. This means that an action is "good" is the consequence it brings is good as well. An example of such a theory is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that an action is morally good if it leads to the most happiness for greatest number of people. However, an objection that can be made to this theory is that utility and happiness are subjective, as well as difficult to measure.
On the other hand, non-consequentialist ethics state that the morality of an action is based on the rightness and wrongness of the actions themselves and not the consequences of those actions. An example of this is the Natural Rights Theory, which states that humans have an inherent right to certain rights, regardless of human behaviour. However, it is unclear who has the right to state what these rights are, which has led to criticism of the theory.
I believe the answer is: <span>causal reasoning
</span><span>causal reasoning refers to the process of identifying a causal and effect relationship that might explain a certain occurence
</span>The process started from initiating assumptions and than conducted several studies to either prove or disprove whether the initial assumptions are correct.
I’m pretty sure the answer is c
