Consequences or Principles?

For me consequences because are difficult there are feelings involved. Expressing emotions is risky, however. Thus, many people frame difficult conversations in ways that ignore their emotional content. Unexpressed feelings can leak back into conversation, and can preoccupy people so that they are unable to be good listeners. The solution is for the parties to identify and understand their feelings, negotiate them, and share them clearly.
It can be hard to know what one is feeling. Simple emotional labels can mask complex bundles of feeling. Often people translate their feelings into judgments, characterizations and attributions about the other person. The need to blame often indicates unexpressed emotions. Understanding and reevaluating the thoughts, perceptions and beliefs that gave rise to the emotions enables us to negotiate with our own feelings, shifting or moderating them. The first step in expressing feelings is to acknowledge that they are an important part of the situation, whether they are "rational" or not. Parties should convey the full range anThe first mistakes that people make as they consider what happened is that they assume they are looking at a factual matter, and they assume that their view of the matter is right. Often parties agree on the bare facts. They differ in their interpretation of what the facts mean, and of what is important. To move toward a leaning conversation, parties must shift from certainty about their own views, to curiosity about the other's views of the situation. Parties should also try to understand why they interpret the situation in the particular way they do. The second set of mistakes concerns understanding the parties' intentions. People tend to assume that they know what the other's intentions are. However, our beliefs about another's intentions are often wrong. We base our assumptions on our own feelings; if I feel hurt then you must have meant to be hurtful. We also tend think the worst of others, and the best of ourselves. Another mistake is to assume that once we explain that our intentions were benign, the other party has no reason to feel hurt. To avoid the first mistake, parties must avoid making the leap from impact to intent. Ask the other what their intent was. Remain open-minded about you own interpretation of their intent. Avoid the other mistake by acknowledging the other's feelings, and by considering the possibility of your own complex motives. Complexity of their feelings, and they should avoid rushing to evaluate the feelings expressed. To be effective sharing requires that the parties acknowledge each other's feelings.Consequences can be good,neutral or evil.Another relevant is which consequences count(intended or actual).If only actual consequences count,then do all consequences count?Consequences can be distinguished by direct/indirect,individuals/objects affected,influence of complicating factors,etc.So, moral action always improves life on earth (in some manner). Acting morally can improve your lot in life. So, there is an incentive to act morally even if you do not believe in an afterlife.
*Utilitarianism follows the cause and effect reasoning in science. It can be proven wrong or right by referring to empirical evidence, instead of a theoretical ideal. . All sentient beings understand pain and pleasure. Thus many have claimed that utilitarianism is transcultural. On a related note, utilitarianism avoids the charge of speciesism in ethical theory by using a moral foundation that is shared by other species,The first mistakes that people make as they consider what happened is that they assume they are looking at a factual matter, and they assume that their view of the matter is right. Often parties agree on the bare facts. They differ in their interpretation of what the facts mean, and of what is important. To move toward a leaning conversation, parties must shift from certainty about their own views, to curiosity about the other's views of the situation. Parties should also try to understand why they interpret the situation in the particular way they do. thus requiring their consideration.
* Depending on the deontological theory, these duties may be absolute (no exceptions), prima facie (can only be overridden by a more important duty), or conditional (only hold under specified circumstances).