Guided comparison
Read the core selections, try the task and test an alternative.
This selection introduces a field; it cannot represent every tradition or settle every disagreement.
Finding the next step…
piatra . institutepathwayspiatra . institutepathwaysFinding the next step…
Compare consequences, duties, character and care using the same case.
No philosophy required. Choose an everyday decision with more than one affected person.
A reasoned decision memo that explains competing values, an objection and the facts still needed.
Start here if the background is new. Equivalent experience is enough.
Separate factual premises from value judgments and give competing reasons a fair hearing.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Facts, values and examples
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Kinds of value and disagreement
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 8.1 The Fact-Value Distinction. Mark where a factual statement becomes a claim about what someone ought to do.
Introduction to Philosophy: 8.2 Basic Questions about Values. List the values in a decision and explain where they conflict.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Consequences, welfare and objections
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Duties, rules and objections
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Character, judgement and objections
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Care, relationships and feminist criticism
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 9.2 Consequentialism. Compare likely outcomes and explain whose welfare you counted.
Introduction to Philosophy: 9.3 Deontology. Identify a duty and test whether you could apply it consistently.
Introduction to Philosophy: 9.4 Virtue Ethics. Ask what good judgement requires beyond following a rule.
Introduction to Philosophy: 9.6 Feminist Theories of Ethics. Identify dependencies, unequal power and responsibilities in an ethical case.
You promised to help a friend move, but a neighbourhood group requests volunteers for the same afternoon. Give one consequence-focused reason, one duty-focused reason and a fact you would need before deciding.
A reason can favour an option without settling the whole case.
A consequence-focused reason might compare the effects of helping each group, including available alternatives. A duty-focused reason might give weight to the promise and the friend’s reliance on it. Ask whether the friend or group can obtain other help, how serious the costs are and whether the promise can be renegotiated. More than one decision may be defensible if its reasons and facts are clear.
What to look for
Common mistake: Using a theory’s name as an answer without applying its reasons to the case.
Start this pathway to keep your answers in My learning.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
One business or technology case
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 10.3 Business Ethics and Emerging Technology. Map benefits, harms and accountability in a technology decision.
A fictional workplace considers a tool that ranks people by recorded computer activity. What should a care-focused ethical analysis examine beyond the average productivity score?
Look at relationships, dependency, power and the ability to challenge the measurement.
Examine who depends on whom, who chooses the metric, whose work is poorly represented and who can contest a ranking. Include workers whose tasks require conversation or offline work and the effects on trust or support. Compare the stated benefit with the burdens on affected people and consider a less intrusive or more representative alternative.
What to look for
Common mistake: Treating the average metric as the complete measure of everyone’s needs and contributions.
Start this pathway to keep your answers in My learning.
Nathan Smith · reference · 2022
Criteria for evaluating moral theories
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Care, relationships and feminist criticism
Check reading access
Open the readingNathan Smith · reference · 2022
Environmental responsibility and competing values
Check reading access
Open the readingIntroduction to Philosophy: 9.1 Requirements of a Normative Moral Theory. Ask whether a theory can guide a difficult decision consistently.
Introduction to Philosophy: 9.6 Feminist Theories of Ethics. Identify dependencies, unequal power and responsibilities in an ethical case.
Introduction to Philosophy: 10.2 Environmental Ethics. Explain what changes when future people and nonhuman life enter a decision.
Your preferred decision benefits the largest group but places a serious burden on a small minority. What objection should your final memo address?
Ask whether counting beneficiaries captures rights, severity and relationships.
Address whether the burden violates a justified constraint, is disproportionately severe, or ignores people who cannot easily refuse it. Explain whether alternatives could retain benefits with less harm. A reasoned memo states why the chosen tradeoff is acceptable or revises the decision; a head count alone does not answer the objection.
What to look for
Common mistake: Assuming that more beneficiaries automatically justify any burden on fewer people.
Start this pathway to keep your answers in My learning.
Editorial perspectives based on selected works, rather than author-endorsed reading lists.
Read the core selections, try the task and test an alternative.
This selection introduces a field; it cannot represent every tradition or settle every disagreement.
Assess likely benefits, harms and whose welfare is counted.
Predicted outcomes can be uncertain and difficult to compare.
Test obligations, consistency and limits on permissible action.
Rules can conflict and still need justification in context.
Consider judgement, relationships, dependency and unequal power.
Relationships and character do not supply a mechanical decision rule.
Background, different viewpoints, and further reading.
Mark where a factual statement becomes a claim about what someone ought to do.
Facts, values and examples
List the values in a decision and explain where they conflict.
Kinds of value and disagreement
Ask whether a theory can guide a difficult decision consistently.
Criteria for evaluating moral theories
Compare likely outcomes and explain whose welfare you counted.
Consequences, welfare and objections
Identify a duty and test whether you could apply it consistently.
Duties, rules and objections
Ask what good judgement requires beyond following a rule.
Character, judgement and objections
Identify dependencies, unequal power and responsibilities in an ethical case.
Care, relationships and feminist criticism
Map benefits, harms and accountability in a technology decision.
One business or technology case
Separate consent, harm and conflicting responsibilities in one case.
One bioethical case and its competing considerations
Explain what changes when future people and nonhuman life enter a decision.
Environmental responsibility and competing values
Distinguish deciding what to do from asking what a moral claim means.
Moral claims and their status
Compare an account of action and flourishing with a familiar moral framework.
Daoist approaches to conduct
Ask whose relationships and responsibilities your first framework omits.
Accounts of community and responsibility
Compare one account of ethical conduct with a theory already studied.
Selected account and its historical context
Compare character, relationships and social order without treating a tradition as a single view.
Selected account and its historical context
Compare how two accounts justify political authority.
Historical accounts of government
Distinguish an institution’s form from the reasons for supporting it.
Forms of government and their tradeoffs
Ask when an obligation to obey a law needs further justification.
Legitimacy, duty and objections
Compare stated principles with a concrete policy choice.
Selected political ideologies
Apply a source check to a claim encountered outside a classroom.
Knowledge in everyday and social settings
Examine who is affected by a design choice and how accessibility changes the decision.