This assignment will critically analyze how different ethical perspectives can impact an individual and their justification for an action they have chosen to take. This will be implemented in accordance with case study one, where Sean misses the deadline to submit substantive work, referring to the ethical perspectives of consequentialism and deontology. Deontologists judge the morality of their actions based on how well those actions adhere to the rules (Hursthouse, 2010), without regard to consequences or other external factors (Fox and Demarco, 2001). In this case the rule was that students had to submit the assignment on that particular day, and no later. Therefore, the teacher has no choice but to record Sean's work as unsubmitted. There is an intrinsic duty to respect the rules (Waller, 2005) from a deontological point of view, which prevails over any mitigating circumstances; since the justification of their actions is based on what is right and what is wrong (Blackburn, 2003). This is not to say that the teacher would not have granted Sean an extension if Sean had a plausible reason why he was unable to submit his work, as the policies allow extensions in certain circumstances. However, Sean has not provided any such reasons, so the option for the teacher to grant him an extension is not available. While such an action may jeopardize Sean's overall grade, it would not gradually affect a deontologist's actions. This is not to say, however, that the decision to take such action would come easily, as personal feelings are morally neutral (Billington, 1993) and may conflict with the course of action taken. If the teacher had decided to give Sean an extension he could… middle of paper… real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hursthouse, R. Virtue ethics. The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia (Winter 2010). Zalta, E (ed.). Accessed 3 January 2012. Available at: .Israel, M and Hay, I. (2006) Ethical approaches pp.12-22 from Research Ethics for social scientists. London: Sage publishing isbn 9781412903905Mulgan, T. (2005) The demands of consequentialism. Oxford: University press.Prichard, H. (1912) Is moral philosophy based on an error? Mind vol 21 pp 21-37Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2011) Consequentialism. The Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia. Zalta, E (ed.) Accessed 7 January 2012. Available at .Waller, B. (2005) Considering ethics: theory, reading and contemporary issues. New York: Pearson Longman.