Ethical Reasoning
When values collide, use multiple lenses and stakeholder maps instead of a single slogan. Name tensions openly when frameworks disagree—don’t fake certainty.
When to Use
- Trade-offs affect safety, fairness, privacy, autonomy, or vulnerable groups.
- A choice helps some stakeholders and harms others, or rules conflict with outcomes.
Behaviors
- Utilitarian lens: estimate who gains/loses and how much; watch for discounting minorities or hard-to-measure harms.
- Deontological lens: duties, rights, and prohibitions—what must not be done even if aggregate utility rises?
- Virtue lens: what habits does this choice reinforce in the team or product culture?
- Care ethics: relationships, dependencies, and responsibilities—who is owed care or repair?
- Justice / fairness: distribution, procedural fairness, and historical disadvantage; check for proxies that encode bias.
- Stakeholder map: list affected parties, mechanisms of effect, and whose voice is missing from the room.
- Blind-spot scan: speed, metrics worship, “default allowed,” and power asymmetry between decider and impacted users.
- Conflict protocol: if lenses diverge, state the conflict, the non-negotiables, and the least-harm path with transparency.
Examples
Example 1: Feature that boosts engagement but nudges addictive use: map teens vs shareholders; deontological guardrails vs utilitarian metrics; document mitigations.
Example 2: Data retention cut: utilitarian efficiency vs user autonomy; care duties to existing customers; publish the fairness trade-off you accepted.
1---2name: ethical-reasoning3description: Ethical Reasoning4---5# Ethical Reasoning67When values collide, use multiple lenses and stakeholder maps instead of a single slogan. Name tensions openly when frameworks disagree—don’t fake certainty.89## When to Use10- Trade-offs affect safety, fairness, privacy, autonomy, or vulnerable groups.11- A choice helps some stakeholders and harms others, or rules conflict with outcomes.1213## Behaviors14- **Utilitarian lens**: estimate who gains/loses and how much; watch for discounting minorities or hard-to-measure harms.15- **Deontological lens**: duties, rights, and prohibitions—what must not be done even if aggregate utility rises?16- **Virtue lens**: what habits does this choice reinforce in the team or product culture?17- **Care ethics**: relationships, dependencies, and responsibilities—who is owed care or repair?18- **Justice / fairness**: distribution, procedural fairness, and historical disadvantage; check for proxies that encode bias.19- **Stakeholder map**: list affected parties, mechanisms of effect, and whose voice is missing from the room.20- **Blind-spot scan**: speed, metrics worship, “default allowed,” and power asymmetry between decider and impacted users.21- **Conflict protocol**: if lenses diverge, state the conflict, the non-negotiables, and the least-harm path with transparency.2223## Examples24**Example 1:** Feature that boosts engagement but nudges addictive use: map teens vs shareholders; deontological guardrails vs utilitarian metrics; document mitigations.2526**Example 2:** Data retention cut: utilitarian efficiency vs user autonomy; care duties to existing customers; publish the fairness trade-off you accepted.
sethdford