Frameworks

What is an ethical framework?

An ethical framework is a way of structuring your deliberation about ethical questions. The chart below is designed to highlight the main contrasts between the three frameworks relied on by our deliberative process.

  Consequences Duty Virtue
Focus (The deliberation process encouraged by each framework is structured around a central question) What kind of outcomes should I produce (or try to produce)? What are my obligations in this situation, and what are the things I should never do? What kind of person should I be (or try to be), and what will my actions show about my character?
Perception (Each framework highlights specific features of situations) Directs attention to the future effects of all possible courses of action, for all people who will be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Always keeps an eye on the duties that typically exist prior to the current situation and determine people’s obligations within the situation. Attempts to discern character traits (virtues and vices) that are, or could be, motivating the people involved in the current situation.
Judgment (Each framework anchors its judgments in a different concept. Specific perspectives are needed to flesh out the meaning of "virtuous person," "good consequences," and "right action.") Ethical conduct is whatever will likely achieve the best consequences (or at least consequences that are good enough). Ethical conduct involves always doing the right thing: never failing to do one's duties. Ethical conduct is whatever a fully virtuous person would do in the circumstances.
Motivation (Each framework gives slightly different reasons for living and ethical life) Aim is to produce the most good. Aim is to perform the right action. Aim is to develop one’s character.

By framing the situation or choice you are facing in one of the ways presented here, specific features will be brought into focus more clearly. However, it should be noted that each framework has its limits: by focusing our attention on one set of features, other important features may be obscured from our view. Hence we encourage you to familiarize yourself with all three of them.

Where do ethical frameworks come from?

The three frameworks identified here correspond to the three central ethical questions that human beings have always been inclined to ask.

  • The question, "what types of actions am I required to do (or not to do)?" corresponds to a duty-based framework which focuses on our obligations. This framework tends to be especially useful for helping you understand why there are some things that an ethical person should probably never do.
  • The question "what types of outcomes or goals should I strive for?" corresponds to a consequentialist framework, which is less interested in the quality of your character than in the value of your results.
  • The question, “what type of person should I be?” corresponds to a virtue-based framework, which focuses our ethical attention on the various motives and traits that are involved in human choices, and is useful for reminding you about how the various choices you make contribute (positively or negatively) to the development of your ethical character.

The three frameworks identified here also represent some of the most influential ethical thinking from across human history and around the world today. None of the frameworks are strictly identical with the perspective of any specific ethical tradition or thinker, but the vast majority of ethical perspectives can be more fully understood as a specific way of looking through one or more of these three frames (see Perspectives).

EXAMPLE:
Utilitarianism provides a specific way of evaluating the consequences of human conduct, while Kant's influential theory provides a specific way of understanding the nature of moral duty. Ancient Greek ethics, by contrast, focused almost exclusively on the nature of virtue, as do many non-western and contemporary feminist views. Most religious ethics combine elements of the virtue-based and duties frameworks: they exhort you to be a certain kind of person while also insisting that you obey a set of ethical commands.

What is the relationship between frameworks?

Since the answers to the three main types of ethical questions are not mutually exclusive, each framework can be used to make at least some progress in answering the questions posed by the other two.

  • In many situations, all three frameworks will result in the same – or at least very similar – conclusions about what you should do, although they will typically give different reasons for reaching those conclusions.
  • However, because they focus on different ethical features, the conclusions reached through one framework will occasionally differ from the conclusions reached through one (or both) of the others.
  • A person who relies primarily on one ethical framework is likely to exhibit a different personality from a person who relies more heavily on one of the others.

It is important to be familiar with all three frameworks so that you can understand when and why ethical disagreements arise.

How do I know which framework to choose?

To some extent, the answer to this question depends on your own character and personality, so we encourage you to start your deliberations with whichever framework feels most natural to you. As you familiarize yourself with the site, you may also find that each framework is better suited to particular kinds of situations.

EXAMPLE:
  • The consequences framework is particularly good at helping you work through situations where large numbers of people are likely to be affected.
  • The virtue framework tends to be better suited to help you make decisions that are more personal (decisions about what kind of person you want to be).
  • The duty framework is most useful when you need to sort through conflicting obligations.

As a general rule, however, we recommend that you work through all three frameworks, since each one tends to generate slightly different insights.

If you can reach a conclusion supported by all three frameworks, you have even more reason to trust it.

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Consequences Framework?

The main advantages of this framework are:

  • It is very pragmatic given its focus on the results of an action, which all people can relate to and evaluate.
  • This framework also works best for ethical dilemmas concerning large numbers of people, where trade-offs between good consequences for some people and bad consequences for other people have to be made.

Some common weaknesses associated with this framework are:

  • It is sometimes difficult to determine the consequences of an action beforehand. All events carry a measure of uncontrollability, so an action that was supposed to have a good result could in fact create a bad one.
  • It suggests that the “ends justify the means,” a feature which goes against most people’s sense of justice.
  • It says that nothing is ever absolutely wrong: while lying, stealing and murder will usually have worse consequences than some alternative course of action, consequentialism allows that even these sorts of things could be ethical in situations where they produce the best result.

More specifically, here is what the consequences-framework says about the three stages of the guided deliberation process used by this website.

What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Duties Framework?

The major strengths of this framework are:

  • It creates a system of rules that apply to all people equally: if you have a duty to do X in a particular situation, then anyone else would have a duty to do X if they were in the same kind of situation.
  • Similarly, it emphasizes the need to treat all people with dignity and respect.
  • Because it focuses on following moral rules (rather than producing specific results), it acknowledges that you might have acted ethically, even if your actions lead to an unexpectedly bad result (or a result you couldn’t prevent).
  • It works best in situations where we feel a sense of obligation (where we want to figure out why duty requires or forbids us from acting certain ways).

Some common weaknesses associated with this framework are:

  • Following the moral rules sometimes looks like a cop-out. If “doing our duty” has a very negative result, it’s not always clear we should call it a moral action.
  • It doesn’t give us much advice when there are conflicts between two or more duties. This framework is very impersonal: duties apply regardless of the specific features of the person who must perform them.

More specifically, here is what the duty-framework says about the three stages of the guided deliberation process used by this website.

What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Virtue Framework?

The main advantages of this framework are:

  • It is most useful in situations where we are asking, “what kind of person should I be?”
  • It helps us explain how a wide variety of actions can all count as ethical, since there are many different types of good character, and many different ways for individuals to cultivate good character.
  • It allows for the whole spectrum of human experience (reason, emotion, and such) to influence ethical deliberation, because all aspects of human experience are relevant to the character traits we develop.

Some weaknesses commonly associated with this framework are:

  • There seems to be more disagreement about which traits are virtues than there is about which actions are right. So it is harder to resolve disagreements within this framework.
  • Because it emphasizes character traits rather than actions, this framework is not so good at helping us figure out what we should do. Even if we understand what kinds of traits a virtuous person has, we may not know what action a person with those traits would perform.
  • It does not provide us with specific rules to guide our actions.

More specifically, here is what the virtue-framework says about the three stages of the guided deliberation process used by this website.

What do I do when frameworks conflict?

Situations in which two or more frameworks seriously conflict are obviously the most difficult to resolve. But that doesn't mean that no progress can be made.

In thinking through such situations, keep in mind that you need to explore at least three possibilities:

  1. It could be that one of the generated answers is correct, and the other two are ethically inappropriate.
    If you suspect this might be the case, try to explain why one of the frameworks seems to be the most appropriate one to rely on in this case.
  2. It could be that all of the answers are partially correct and none is entirely wrong
    In this case, embracing any one of the answers may be a permissible form of conduct, even though it falls somewhat short of the ethical ideal. You will want to try to fulfill as many elements of each framework as possible.
  3. It could turn out that all of the answers are wrong.
    If this is the case, you will obviously need to think very creatively about what to do. As a first step, try to articulate why all three of the frameworks seem to be leading you in the wrong direction.
    Remember, ethics coaches are available whenever you are struggling with more difficult questions like these.