MoralCompass

Ethical frameworks

The lenses we use to think clearly

MoralCompass draws on established ethical traditions — not to give you a formula, but to help you see a situation from multiple angles before you decide.

Why more than one framework?

No single ethical theory has all the answers. Each one illuminates something the others can miss. A consequentialist asks what will actually happen. A deontologist asks what rules apply. A virtue ethicist asks what a good person would do.

Used together, they act like different light sources on the same object — each one casting shadows in different places, so you end up seeing more of the whole.

Consequentialism

Judge actions by their outcomes

An action is right if it produces the best overall outcome — the greatest good for the greatest number. The most well-known form is utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Strengths

  • Focuses attention on real-world impact
  • Encourages thinking about everyone affected, not just those closest to you
  • Useful when outcomes are measurable and foreseeable

Limitations

  • Can justify harming a minority for the benefit of the majority
  • Outcomes are often uncertain — we can't always predict consequences
  • May undervalue rights, duties, and fairness

In practice

When facing a dilemma, ask: who is affected by each possible course of action, and what are the likely outcomes for each of them? Which option produces the least harm and the most benefit overall?

Key thinkers:Jeremy BenthamJohn Stuart MillPeter Singer

Deontology

Judge actions by the rules they follow

Some actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. Immanuel Kant argued that we should act only according to principles we could will to become universal laws — and that we must always treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means.

Strengths

  • Protects individual rights even when outcomes might favour ignoring them
  • Provides clear, consistent rules that apply regardless of circumstances
  • Respects human dignity as non-negotiable

Limitations

  • Can be rigid — rules may conflict with each other
  • Doesn't always account for context or consequences
  • May produce outcomes that feel obviously wrong in edge cases

In practice

Ask: what duties or obligations apply here? Are there rules — professional, legal, or moral — that govern this situation? Could I will that everyone in my position act the same way? Am I treating everyone involved with the respect they deserve?

Key thinkers:Immanuel KantW.D. RossChristine Korsgaard

Virtue ethics

Judge actions by the character they express

Rather than asking 'what should I do?', virtue ethics asks 'what kind of person should I be?' Rooted in Aristotle, it focuses on developing good character traits — courage, honesty, fairness, compassion — and acting from those traits consistently.

Strengths

  • Focuses on the whole person, not just isolated decisions
  • Handles moral complexity and context well
  • Encourages long-term character development, not just rule-following

Limitations

  • Less prescriptive — doesn't always give a clear answer in the moment
  • Virtues can conflict (e.g. honesty vs. compassion)
  • What counts as a virtue can vary across cultures

In practice

Ask: what would a person of good character do in this situation? What virtues are relevant — honesty, courage, fairness, loyalty? Which course of action would I be proud to explain to someone I respect?

Key thinkers:AristotleAlasdair MacIntyrePhilippa Foot

Care ethics

Judge actions by the relationships they honour

Care ethics emphasises relationships, context, and the particular needs of individuals over abstract universal rules. Developed by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings, it asks us to pay attention to who depends on whom, and to respond with empathy and responsibility.

Strengths

  • Centres the needs of real people in specific relationships
  • Recognises that context matters — the same action can mean different things in different relationships
  • Encourages empathy and attentiveness as moral skills

Limitations

  • Can favour those close to us over those with equal or greater need
  • Less useful for decisions involving strangers or large groups
  • May be seen as too subjective or partial

In practice

Ask: who depends on me in this situation, and what do they need from me? What are the relationships at stake, and how will each option affect them? Am I paying enough attention to the particular circumstances of the people involved?

Key thinkers:Carol GilliganNel NoddingsVirginia Held

Justice and fairness

Judge actions by whether they treat people equally

John Rawls argued that a just society is one we would design if we didn't know what position we'd occupy in it — the 'veil of ignorance'. This framework asks whether the principles behind a decision are ones that everyone, regardless of their position, could accept as fair.

Strengths

  • Provides a powerful check against self-interest and bias
  • Focuses on systemic fairness, not just individual acts
  • Useful for evaluating policies and institutional decisions

Limitations

  • The 'veil of ignorance' is a thought experiment — hard to apply in real time
  • May not account for legitimate differences in need or circumstance
  • Can conflict with other values like efficiency or care

In practice

Ask: if I didn't know whether I was the decision-maker, the person affected, or a bystander — would I still think this was fair? Are the benefits and burdens of this decision distributed equitably? Are the most vulnerable people adequately protected?

Key thinkers:John RawlsMartha NussbaumAmartya Sen

How MoralCompass uses these frameworks

The guided framework tool doesn't ask you to pick a theory and stick to it. Instead, it walks you through each lens in turn — so you can see where they agree, where they diverge, and what that tells you about the decision you're facing.

"You don't need to be a philosopher. You just need to be willing to look at the situation from more than one angle."

Ready to put the frameworks to work?

The guided tool walks you through each perspective in about 10 minutes.