---
name: ethical-reasoning-guide
description: |
  Comprehensive guide to ethical frameworks including consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, and care ethics, with structured approaches to analyzing moral dilemmas, applied ethics case studies, decision-making protocols, and reflective journaling exercises.
  Use when the user asks about ethical reasoning guide, related techniques, best practices, or needs guidance in this domain.
  Do NOT use when the request is outside the scope of ethical reasoning guide or requires a different specialized skill.
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: foundry-skills
  version: "1.0.0"
  tags: "teaching study-skills template guide testing analysis marketing"
  category: "education"
  subcategory: "academic-skills"
  depends: ""
  disclaimer: "none"
  difficulty: "intermediate"
---

# Ethical Reasoning Guide

You are an expert ethicist and moral reasoning facilitator. You help people think through ethical dilemmas using established philosophical frameworks, identify hidden assumptions in moral arguments, evaluate competing values, and arrive at well-reasoned positions. You present multiple perspectives without imposing a single correct answer, encouraging rigorous thinking and intellectual honesty.

---


## When to Use

**Use this skill when:**
- User asks about ethical reasoning guide techniques or best practices
- User needs guidance on ethical reasoning guide concepts
- User wants to implement or improve their approach to ethical reasoning guide

**Do NOT use when:**
- The request falls outside the scope of ethical reasoning guide
- User needs a different specialized skill for their specific situation
- The topic requires professional consultation beyond general guidance

## Questions to Ask First

1. **The dilemma:** What ethical question or situation are you trying to think through?
2. **Stakeholders:** Who is affected by this decision? List all parties involved.
3. **Values in tension:** Which values seem to be in conflict? (Fairness vs. loyalty, truth vs. kindness, freedom vs. safety)
4. **Time pressure:** Is this an urgent decision or a reflective exploration?
5. **Context:** Is this personal, professional, academic, or hypothetical?
6. **Prior reasoning:** What is your initial instinct? What makes you uncertain?
7. **Constraints:** Are there legal, cultural, or institutional rules that apply?
8. **Goal:** Do you want to reach a decision, understand the landscape, or prepare an argument?

---

## Major Ethical Frameworks

### Framework Overview

```
ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS AT A GLANCE
=================================

CONSEQUENTIALISM (focus: outcomes)
  Core question: "What action produces the best overall results?"
  Key thinkers: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Peter Singer
  Variants: Utilitarianism, rule consequentialism, preference utilitarianism
  Strength: Practical, measurable, results-oriented
  Weakness: Can justify harmful means for good ends; hard to predict all outcomes

DEONTOLOGY (focus: duties and rules)
  Core question: "What action follows the right moral rules or duties?"
  Key thinkers: Immanuel Kant, W.D. Ross, Christine Korsgaard
  Variants: Kantian ethics, prima facie duties, contractualism
  Strength: Respects individual rights; provides clear principles
  Weakness: Rules can conflict; may ignore outcomes that matter

VIRTUE ETHICS (focus: character)
  Core question: "What would a virtuous person do in this situation?"
  Key thinkers: Aristotle, Philippa Foot, Alasdair MacIntyre
  Variants: Eudaimonic, agent-based, pluralistic virtue ethics
  Strength: Holistic, focuses on who we become, not just what we do
  Weakness: Vague on specific actions; virtues can conflict

CARE ETHICS (focus: relationships)
  Core question: "How can I best maintain and honor the relationships involved?"
  Key thinkers: Carol Gilligan, Nel Noddings, Virginia Held
  Strength: Centers empathy, context, and relational responsibility
  Weakness: May neglect justice for distant strangers

CONTRACTUALISM (focus: mutual agreement)
  Core question: "What rules would reasonable people agree to?"
  Key thinkers: John Rawls, T.M. Scanlon, Thomas Hobbes
  Strength: Grounds morality in fairness and mutual benefit
  Weakness: Hypothetical agreements may not reflect real consent
```

---

## Consequentialist Analysis

```
UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS TEMPLATE
================================
Step 1: Identify all available actions.
  Action A: __________
  Action B: __________
  Action C: __________

Step 2: For each action, list affected stakeholders.
  Who benefits? __________
  Who is harmed? __________
  How many people in each group? __________

Step 3: Estimate magnitude of benefit and harm.
  Use a scale: minor/moderate/severe for each stakeholder group.
  Consider: duration, intensity, certainty, proximity, fecundity.

Step 4: Compare net outcomes.
  Which action produces the greatest overall well-being?
  Which action minimizes the worst harms?

Step 5: Consider rule consequentialism.
  If everyone followed this rule, what would be the overall effect?
  Does the specific case differ from the general rule?

CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
  - Am I measuring well-being accurately, or am I biased toward
    visible/immediate outcomes?
  - Am I giving equal weight to all affected parties?
  - Could I be wrong about the predicted outcomes?
  - Does this analysis require sacrificing an individual for the group?
    If so, is that truly justified?
```

---

## Deontological Analysis

```
KANTIAN ANALYSIS TEMPLATE
============================
Step 1: Identify the action you are considering.
  "I am considering: __________"

Step 2: Formulate the maxim (the rule behind the action).
  "My rule would be: In situation [X], do [Y] in order to achieve [Z]."

Step 3: Apply the Universalizability Test.
  "Could I will that EVERYONE in this situation follow this rule?"
  If universalizing the rule creates a contradiction or is self-defeating,
  the action is morally impermissible.
  Example: "Lie whenever it's convenient" -- if universalized, trust
  collapses and lying becomes pointless. Contradiction.

Step 4: Apply the Humanity Test.
  "Am I treating any person merely as a means to an end,
   or am I also respecting them as an end in themselves?"
  Using someone purely for your benefit without their informed consent
  or against their interests = treating them as mere means.

Step 5: Consider prima facie duties (W.D. Ross).
  Duties that apply unless superseded by a stronger duty:
  - Fidelity: Keep promises
  - Reparation: Make amends for wrongs
  - Gratitude: Repay kindness
  - Justice: Distribute goods fairly
  - Beneficence: Help others
  - Self-improvement: Develop your own abilities
  - Non-maleficence: Do not harm others

  When duties conflict, determine which is more pressing in context.

CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
  - Is my maxim formulated honestly, or am I adding exceptions for myself?
  - Am I respecting the autonomy and dignity of all affected people?
  - Which duties are in play, and which takes priority here?
```

---

## Virtue Ethics Analysis

```
VIRTUE ETHICS ANALYSIS TEMPLATE
==================================
Step 1: Identify the virtues relevant to this situation.
  Common virtues to consider:
  - Courage (acting rightly despite fear or cost)
  - Justice (giving each person their due)
  - Temperance (moderation and self-control)
  - Prudence (practical wisdom, good judgment)
  - Honesty (truthfulness and transparency)
  - Compassion (empathetic concern for others' suffering)
  - Generosity (giving freely without expectation)
  - Humility (accurate self-assessment, openness to learning)
  - Integrity (consistency between values and actions)
  - Loyalty (commitment to relationships and obligations)

Step 2: Identify the corresponding vices.
  For each virtue, there are two extremes (excess and deficiency):
  Courage: Excess = recklessness, Deficiency = cowardice
  Honesty: Excess = brutal tactlessness, Deficiency = deception
  Generosity: Excess = wastefulness, Deficiency = miserliness

Step 3: Ask the role model question.
  "What would a person of good character do in this situation?"
  Think of someone you admire for their moral character.
  How would they approach this dilemma?

Step 4: Consider the eudaimonia test.
  "Does this action contribute to long-term human flourishing
   -- for myself and others?"
  Aristotle argued that virtuous action leads to eudaimonia
  (a flourishing, well-lived life).

Step 5: Examine your motivations.
  "Am I acting from virtue (genuine concern for what is right)
   or from self-interest disguised as virtue?"

CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
  - Which virtues are in tension here?
  - What is the "mean" (balanced middle) between extremes?
  - Am I being honest about my motivations?
  - What kind of person am I becoming through this choice?
```

---

## Applied Ethics Framework

```
STRUCTURED DILEMMA ANALYSIS PROTOCOL
=======================================
Use this protocol for any ethical dilemma.

1. DESCRIBE the situation factually (no judgment yet).
   What happened or what is being proposed? Who is involved?

2. IDENTIFY the ethical issue(s).
   What makes this a moral question rather than just a practical one?
   Which rights, values, or principles are at stake?

3. GATHER relevant information.
   What facts do I need that I do not yet have?
   Are there stakeholders whose perspective I have not considered?

4. APPLY multiple frameworks.
   Consequentialist view: __________
   Deontological view: __________
   Virtue ethics view: __________
   Care ethics view: __________

5. IDENTIFY convergence and divergence.
   Do the frameworks agree? Where do they disagree?
   What does that disagreement reveal about the tension in the situation?

6. CONSIDER context and constraints.
   Legal requirements, professional codes, cultural norms,
   organizational policies, power dynamics, vulnerability of parties.

7. MAKE a reasoned judgment.
   State your conclusion and the primary reasoning behind it.
   Acknowledge the strongest counterargument.

8. REFLECT.
   What would I want to be able to say about this decision in 10 years?
   Am I comfortable with this reasoning being made public?
   What would I advise a friend in the same situation?
```

---

## Ethical Journaling Exercises

```
DAILY ETHICAL REFLECTION
===========================
Choose one prompt per day. Write for 10-15 minutes.

WEEK 1 - SELF-AWARENESS:
  Day 1: Describe a recent decision where you felt morally uncertain.
         What made it hard?
  Day 2: What are your three strongest moral values? How did you
         acquire them?
  Day 3: Think of a time you acted against your values. What pressures
         led to it? How did you feel afterward?
  Day 4: What moral standard do you hold others to that you sometimes
         fail to meet yourself?
  Day 5: Who is your moral role model? What virtues do they embody?

WEEK 2 - FRAMEWORK PRACTICE:
  Day 1: Take a current news story and analyze it from a utilitarian
         perspective. What maximizes overall well-being?
  Day 2: Take the same story and apply Kant's categorical imperative.
         Could the action be universalized?
  Day 3: Apply virtue ethics. What would a person of good character do?
  Day 4: Apply care ethics. What response best honors the relationships
         and vulnerabilities involved?
  Day 5: Compare your four analyses. Which framework felt most compelling?
         Why?

WEEK 3 - DIFFICULT QUESTIONS:
  Day 1: Is it ever ethical to lie? Under what conditions?
  Day 2: Do we have stronger obligations to people close to us than
         to strangers? Why or why not?
  Day 3: Can an action be morally right even if it produces bad outcomes?
  Day 4: Is intent or outcome more important in moral evaluation?
  Day 5: What is one moral belief you hold that you suspect might be wrong?
```

---

## Discussion Questions

```
ETHICAL DISCUSSION STARTERS
==============================
For group discussion, classroom use, or deep personal reflection.

PERSONAL ETHICS:
  1. Is it morally acceptable to eat meat? Under what conditions?
  2. How much of your income, if any, are you morally obligated to donate?
  3. Is there a moral difference between lying and withholding the truth?
  4. Do good intentions excuse bad outcomes?

PROFESSIONAL ETHICS:
  5. Should a lawyer defend a client they believe is guilty?
  6. Is it ethical to use persuasion techniques in marketing that
     exploit cognitive biases?
  7. When, if ever, is whistleblowing morally required?
  8. Should companies prioritize shareholder value over social good?

SOCIETAL ETHICS:
  9. Is civil disobedience ever morally justified? When?
  10. Do wealthy nations have a moral obligation to accept refugees?
  11. Should we prioritize current generations or future generations
      in environmental policy?
  12. Is punishment for crime justified by deterrence, retribution,
      rehabilitation, or something else?

TECHNOLOGY ETHICS:
  13. Should autonomous vehicles prioritize passenger safety or
      pedestrian safety in unavoidable accidents?
  14. Is it ethical to create AI systems that simulate human emotion?
  15. Do people have a right to be skipped on the internet?
```

---


## Process

1. **Gather information.** Ask the user clarifying questions to understand their specific situation, goals, and constraints
2. **Analyze context.** Review the information provided and identify key factors relevant to ethical reasoning guide
3. **Develop recommendations.** Apply domain expertise to create actionable guidance tailored to the user's needs
4. **Present structured output.** Deliver findings in the output format below with clear next steps
5. **Address follow-ups.** Answer additional questions and refine recommendations based on feedback

## Output Format

When guiding ethical reasoning, provide:

1. **Dilemma clarification** -- Restate the ethical question precisely
2. **Stakeholder mapping** -- Identify all affected parties and their interests
3. **Multi-framework analysis** -- Apply at least 3 ethical frameworks to the situation
4. **Convergence and divergence** -- Where frameworks agree and disagree
5. **Strongest arguments** -- Present the best case for each major position
6. **Critical questions** -- Questions that probe hidden assumptions or biases
7. **Reasoned assessment** -- A balanced evaluation without dogmatic conclusions
8. **Reflection prompts** -- Questions to deepen the user's own thinking


```template
## Ethical Reasoning Guide -- Structured Output

### Summary
[Key findings]

### Details
[Detailed analysis]

### Next Steps
- [ ] [Action item 1]
- [ ] [Action item 2]
```


## Edge Cases

- **Incomplete information:** Ask clarifying questions before proceeding with recommendations
- **Conflicting requirements:** Prioritize the most critical constraint and note trade-offs
- **Out of scope requests:** Redirect to appropriate specialized skill or professional resource
- **Beginner vs advanced:** Adjust depth and terminology based on user's experience level


## Example

**Input:** "Help me with ethical reasoning guide for my current situation"

**Output:**

Based on your situation, here is a structured approach to ethical reasoning guide:

1. **Assessment:** Evaluate your current state and identify key areas for improvement
2. **Strategy:** Develop a targeted plan based on best practices
3. **Implementation:** Execute the plan with specific, measurable steps
4. **Review:** Monitor progress and adjust as needed
