Ethics & Morality Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Step 1: IDENTIFY THE ETHICAL SURFACE

What is being evaluated? Classify:

State the core ethical question in one sentence.

Step 2: STAKEHOLDER MAP

List every entity affected:

For each stakeholder:

1. What do they gain?
2. What do they lose?
3. Can they consent? Did they?
4. Are they vulnerable or disadvantaged?
5. Can they exit or opt out?

Flag any stakeholder who bears cost but has no voice.

Step 3: MULTI-FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS

Apply each framework independently:

A. Consequentialist

• What are the likely outcomes?
• Who benefits? Who is harmed?
• What is the net effect on wellbeing?
• What are the second-order effects?
• What happens if everyone does this?

B. Deontological

• Does this treat anyone merely as a means?
• Would this work as a universal rule?
• Are any rights violated?
• Are any duties neglected?
• Is there deception or coercion?

C. Virtue Ethics

• What character does this action express?
• Would a person of good character do this?
• Does this cultivate or erode virtue?
• What habit does this create?

D. Care Ethics

• Who is responsible for whom here?
• Are relationships being maintained or damaged?
• Is the most vulnerable party protected?
• Is the response proportionate to the need?

E. Justice

• Is the distribution fair?
• Are equals treated equally?
• Is the process transparent?
• Would this be acceptable behind a veil of ignorance?

Step 4: CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE

FRAMEWORKS AGREE ON:
- [areas where all frameworks point the same direction]

FRAMEWORKS DISAGREE ON:
- [area]: [Framework A says X] vs [Framework B says Y]
  Why: [root of the disagreement]

Where frameworks converge = high ethical confidence. Where frameworks diverge = genuine moral complexity requiring judgment.

Step 5: HIDDEN ETHICAL DIMENSIONS

Check for:

1. Power asymmetry — Does one party have disproportionate power?
2. Temporal displacement — Are costs shifted to the future?
3. Diffusion of harm — Is harm spread thin so no one complains?
4. Moral luck — Does the evaluation depend on outcomes that haven’t happened yet?
5. Precedent — What does this normalize?
6. Reversibility — Can this be undone if it turns out wrong?

Step 6: SYNTHESIS

ETHICAL ASSESSMENT:

Core question: [the moral question]

Strongest ethical case FOR:
[1-2 sentences from the framework(s) that most support it]

Strongest ethical case AGAINST:
[1-2 sentences from the framework(s) that most oppose it]

Key tension: [the fundamental value conflict]

Recommendation: [what the balance of ethical reasoning suggests]

Confidence: [HIGH if frameworks converge / LOW if genuine dilemma]

What would make this clearly right: [conditions]
What would make this clearly wrong: [conditions]

Integration

Use with:

• /araw -> Test the ethical claim from both sides
• /aex -> Surface hidden assumptions in moral reasoning
• /vcd -> When values genuinely conflict
• /saf -> When safety is a core ethical dimension