There are two main schools of thought when it comes to scoring the ethical weight of one's actions, these being those who believe in consequential ethics and those who believe in rationalism. the consequential ethicist believes that all moral actions ought to be judged based on the results of the action, while a rationalist believes that there is an overarching principle behind which all moral actions should be compared to. Moreover, the rationalist believes that this rational principle is completely valid for everybody under all circumstances.

The two rationalists we shall discuss are Immanuel Kant and Plato. Kant was the quintessential rationalist. His argument was solely that in order for an action to be considered an ethical one, it must be performed in duty to the law. Merely doing something that is required by, in accordance with, the law is not enough for Kant, he required that one's intention be because an action is required due to the law. Once the intention has been established, one may argue the moral validity of his or her actions. Kant does not argue, as it may seem to the reader, that an action is not judged right or wrong if it is not done out of duty for the rational principle, the action merely is not an ethical question if it is not. In order for Kant to consider an action morally right, the action must be generalizable so that every rational being ought to act in the same manner as if it were a natural law. Furthermore, a perfectly rational being would not even think about doing anything besides our previously mentioned action.

Plato should be considered to be a rationalist as well. Plato's main concern, and overarching rational principle, throughout Republic was that the health of one's soul is paramount. In order for somebody to have a healthy soul, he or she would have to have a soul which is balanced of the four virtues; moderation, wisdom courage and justice. A truly just soul has the other three virtues in an appropriate balance. In the Republic Plato writes that "justice and injustice are in the soul what the healthful and the diseaseful are in the body; there is no difference."

We must now move away from our discussion of the rationalists and on to the two consequentialists: Aristotle and J. S. Mill. It is hardly possible to argue that Aristotle was anything but a consequentialist. Aristotle believed that every activity has a telos, that every action leads to an end. According to Aristotle, there is a single end which is an end itself, and that is happiness. As such, he must be thought of as a consequential ethicist. The purpose of every action was meant to lead to this ultimate end of happiness. Aristotle believed that one cannot achieve happiness during a life, however this is the consequence of living a happy, successful life. "The Good" to Aristotle was everything performing their designed purpose, and the purpose of man, to live a life leading towards happiness, "The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind."

Our final philospher to examine is J. S. Mill. Like Aristotle, J. S. Mill clearly believed in ethics being consequential. The idea that his philosophy, Utilitarianism, is concerned with is the Greatest Happiness Principle. This is not exactly like the happiness that Aristotle described as it is not only obtained by a lifetime of success. J. S. Mill put the most importance on the acttions which provided the most happiness for the most people most of the time. An action which produces the greatest happiness for the individual also promotes the happiness of all individuals. Private utility should not conflict with public utility. J. S. Mill stated it as such, "..actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."