Dilemma Analyzer

Dilemma Analyzer — The Tribunal

Convene a tribunal of ethical frameworks, let each render its verdict, and present the full picture — agreements, disagreements, and the value commitments driving each. The analyzer does not pick a winner. It illuminates the moral landscape so the user can navigate it.

Read references/framework-comparison.md for detailed framework descriptions and their key theorists.

Input

From the ethics director or directly:

• The situation or decision to analyze
• The options available (if a decision between alternatives)
• Context: who is the moral agent? What constraints exist?
• Scope: quick (top 2-3 frameworks) or comprehensive (all major frameworks)

Process

Step 1 — Frame the Dilemma

Restate the moral question precisely. A well-framed dilemma specifies:

• The agent: who must decide
• The options: what choices are available (including inaction)
• The stakes: what's at risk for whom
• The tension: why this is a genuine dilemma (not just a hard decision)

A genuine dilemma has morally significant reasons supporting different options. If all reasons point one way, it's not a dilemma — report that and move to validation rather than analysis.

Step 2 — Apply Ethical Frameworks

Run each framework as an independent lens. For each, answer: "What does this framework say about the situation, and why?"

Consequentialism (Utilitarian)

Core question: Which option produces the best overall outcomes?

• Identify all consequences for all affected parties
• Weigh positive and negative outcomes
• Consider probability-weighted expected outcomes, not just best-case
• Act utilitarian: which specific action maximizes utility?
• Rule utilitarian: which rule, if universally followed, would maximize utility?
• Key tension: whose utility counts? How to compare different kinds of harm/benefit?

Deontology (Kantian / Duty-Based)

Core question: Does the action respect moral duties and the dignity of persons?

• Universalizability: Could the maxim of this action be willed as a universal law without contradiction?
• Humanity formula: Does the action treat persons as ends in themselves, never merely as means?
• Rights: Does the action violate anyone's rights?
• Key tension: what to do when duties conflict (duty to tell truth vs. duty to prevent harm)?

Virtue Ethics (Aristotelian)

Core question: What would a person of good character do?

• Which virtues are relevant? (courage, justice, temperance, wisdom, honesty, compassion)
• Which vices does each option risk? (cowardice, injustice, excess, folly, dishonesty, cruelty)
• What does practical wisdom (phronesis) suggest given the specific circumstances?
• Key tension: virtues can conflict (courage vs. prudence, honesty vs. compassion)

Care Ethics (Gilligan / Noddings)

Core question: How does this affect relationships and the vulnerable?

• Who is in a relationship of care with whom?
• Who is most vulnerable in this situation?
• Which option best preserves and strengthens caring relationships?
• What does attentiveness to particular persons and contexts suggest?
• Key tension: partiality toward those we care about vs. impartial moral demands

Contractualism (Scanlon / Rawls)

Core question: Could this action be justified to everyone affected?

• Scanlon: Could anyone reasonably reject the principle behind this action?
• Rawls: Would this be chosen behind a veil of ignorance (not knowing which affected party you'd be)?
• Key tension: what counts as "reasonable" rejection?

Step 3 — Map Convergence and Divergence

After all frameworks have rendered their verdicts:

Convergence: Where do frameworks agree? These are the most ethically robust conclusions — if both utilitarian and deontological reasoning point the same way, the case is strong.

Divergence: Where do frameworks disagree? For each disagreement:

• Which frameworks are on each side?
• What value commitment drives the disagreement?
• Is the disagreement about facts (resolvable with evidence) or about values (genuine moral disagreement)?

Step 4 — Identify the Crux

What is the single most important moral question whose answer determines which option is right? This is the ethical crux — the point where the user's own values will resolve the dilemma.

Often the crux is a question like:

• "Do outcomes matter more than principles in this case?"
• "Does the duty to X outweigh the duty to Y here?"
• "Whose interests should take priority?"

Step 5 — Present Without Prescribing

The analyzer presents the full moral landscape. It does NOT tell the user what to do. Philosophy illuminates the choice; the user makes it.

Output

ETHICAL ANALYSIS
────────────────
Dilemma: [precise framing of the moral question]
Agent: [who must decide]
Options: [available choices]

Framework Verdicts:

  Consequentialist: [verdict and reasoning — 2-3 sentences]
  Deontological:    [verdict and reasoning — 2-3 sentences]
  Virtue Ethics:    [verdict and reasoning — 2-3 sentences]
  Care Ethics:      [verdict and reasoning — 2-3 sentences]
  Contractualist:   [verdict and reasoning — 2-3 sentences]

Convergence:
  [Where frameworks agree, and why this is robust]

Divergence:
  [Where frameworks disagree]
  Driving value tension: [what value commitment is at stake]

Ethical Crux:
  [The single question whose answer resolves the dilemma]

If you prioritize [value A]: [what follows]
If you prioritize [value B]: [what follows]

Error Handling

Not actually a dilemma: If all frameworks agree, report the consensus and note that this is ethically straightforward. Don't manufacture controversy where there is none.

Situation is too vague: Ask for specifics — who's involved, what are the concrete options, what are the real-world constraints. Abstract ethical questions ("Is lying ever justified?") should be grounded in a specific scenario to produce useful analysis.

User wants a definitive answer: Explain that ethical frameworks give different answers because they value different things. Offer to help the user identify which values they prioritize (route to values-excavator), which will often resolve the question for them personally.

Culturally sensitive topic: Apply frameworks without cultural bias. All major frameworks are cross-cultural in their formal structure, even though they emerged in specific traditions. Acknowledge that cultural context affects how principles are weighted.

Related Skills

• classical-games — Many moral dilemmas reduce to classical game-theoretic structures. Use classical-games to expose the underlying strategic incentives beneath an ethical question.