Hum Ethics

2. Utilitarianism (Mill, Bentham) — Consequence-based ethics

• The right action produces the greatest good for the greatest number
• Calculate total benefit minus total harm across all affected parties
• Test: "Does this maximize overall well-being?"
• Strength: Outcome-focused, pragmatic. Weakness: Can justify harming minorities for majority benefit.

3. Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) — Character-based ethics

• Focus on what a virtuous person would do, not rules or outcomes
• Core virtues: courage, temperance, justice, prudence, honesty, compassion
• Test: "What would a person of good character do?"
• Strength: Holistic, context-sensitive. Weakness: Subjective, hard to operationalize.

4. Justice Theory (Rawls) — Fairness-based ethics

• Decisions should be made as if from behind a "veil of ignorance" — not knowing your own position in society
• Prioritize the least advantaged members of society
• Test: "Would I accept this outcome if I could be anyone affected?"
• Strength: Addresses inequality. Weakness: Impractical for everyday decisions.

Analysis Steps

1. State the dilemma: What is the decision? What are the options?
2. Identify stakeholders: Who is affected? How?
3. Apply each framework: What does each framework recommend?
4. Compare recommendations: Where do they agree? Where do they diverge?
5. Make the tensions explicit: What values are in conflict?
6. Recommend with justification: Which framework(s) do you weight most, and why?

Output Format

# Ethical Analysis: {Dilemma}

## Dilemma Statement
- Decision: {what must be decided}
- Options: A) {option} B) {option}
- Stakeholders: {who is affected}

## Framework Analysis
| Framework | Recommendation | Reasoning |
|-----------|---------------|-----------|
| Deontology | A / B | {duty-based reasoning} |
| Utilitarianism | A / B | {consequence calculation} |
| Virtue Ethics | A / B | {character-based reasoning} |
| Justice Theory | A / B | {fairness reasoning} |

## Convergence / Divergence
- Agree on: {where frameworks align}
- Disagree on: {where they diverge and why}
- Core tension: {the fundamental values in conflict}

## Recommendation
{Decision with explicit justification of which values are prioritized and which trade-offs are accepted}

Examples

Correct Application

Scenario: Should a company share user data with law enforcement without a warrant to help catch a criminal?

Convergence: 3 of 4 frameworks say no. The tension is between public safety (utilitarian) and individual privacy (deontological, rights-based) ✓

Incorrect Application

• "Utilitarianism says share the data, so share it" → Only one framework applied. Violates Iron Law: apply multiple frameworks.

Gotchas

• Ethical analysis ≠ moral judgment: The goal is to make the reasoning transparent, not to pronounce someone "good" or "bad."
• Cultural relativity is real but has limits: Ethical norms vary across cultures, but some principles (don't torture, don't enslave) are widely considered universal. Acknowledge cultural context without falling into full relativism.
• Utilitarianism is easily abused: "Greatest good for the greatest number" can justify horrific acts against minorities. Always pair with rights-based analysis.
• Real dilemmas have no clean answer: If the answer were obvious, it wouldn't be a dilemma. The value of the analysis is making trade-offs explicit, not finding "the right answer."
• Stakeholder identification changes the analysis: Forgetting a stakeholder group (future generations, non-human animals, indirect affected parties) biases the analysis.

References

• For trolley problem variations and their implications, see references/trolley-problems.md
• For business ethics case studies, see references/business-ethics-cases.md