Ethical reasoning: three lenses, one defensible decision
Introducido| English | Significado |
|---|---|
| stakeholder/ˈsteɪkhəʊldə/ | partes interesadas |
| consequentialism/ˌkɒnsɪˈkwenʃɪəlɪzəm/ | judging a decision by its outcomes |
| deontology/diːənˈtɒlədʒi/ | judging a decision by duties and rights, whatever the outcome |
| virtue ethics/ˈvɜːtʃuː ˈeθɪks/ | judging the character a decision builds |
The claim you could get away with
- Course 10's sponsor wants a carbon-neutral bun. The founder probably could get away with the word. The question here is whether it would be right - and that has method.
- The measured number from course 10: 156 g a bun, cradle-to-gate.
The tree: facts to review date
- State the facts, map the stakeholders 利益相关者 (named, not averaged), pass the three lenses, decide with reasons written, set a review date.
The measured cradle-to-gate figure per bun, in grams (course 10)?
Dificultad 2/5 · 140 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
156 g - the number the word neutral would contradict.
What comes immediately after mapping the stakeholders in the tree?
Dificultad 1/5 · 100 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
Facts, stakeholders, lenses, decision, reasons, review.
The three lenses
- Consequentialism 后果主义: what outcomes, for whom, how far ahead - the journalist will recompute the claim (it is one division).
- Deontology 义务论: the word says zero, the number says 156 - a false statement is wrong whatever the sales bump. Virtue ethics 德性伦理: what would an honest baker do; the brand is honesty at the counter.
Which lens is speaking?
Route each argument to the lens it comes from - and hear where they disagree.
The wage-clause answer costs +400 a year against the 4,800 saving. What fraction of the saving, in %?
Dificultad 2/5 · 140 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
400/4,800 = 8.3% - the price of a truthful claim.
The honest version of the neutral-bun claim is:
Dificultad 1/5 · 100 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
A number, a boundary, a date, a method - the four-part standard.
Match each lens to its question.
Dificultad 2/5 · 140 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
Three lenses and the map that feeds them.
Ethics with a number on it
- The supplier wage case: mill B saves 4,800, but harvesting runs below a living wage. The negotiated answer: dual-source with a written wage clause, accepting +400 a year of cost as the price of a claim Nimbus can make truthfully.
- The deadline case: schedule risk 10% - the risk-adjusted truth beats the lie and manages just as well.
If a claim is lawful, the ethics question is settled.
Dificultad 1/5 · 100 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
The legal standards are floors, not ceilings - greenwashing is an ethical defect before a legal one.
A decision with a written rationale and a review date is a hypothesis, not a verdict.
Dificultad 1/5 · 100 monedas + un pequeño bono en el primer intento de hoy
That is the last stage of the tree - and the habit that makes ethics auditable.
Three ethics slips
- Averaging stakeholders into the greater good. The crew below the line is where ethics starts.
- Using a lens as a verdict machine. The reasoning happens where the lenses disagree.
- Treating legal as the finish line. The standards of unit 1 are floors.
Recap
- Facts, stakeholders, three lenses, decision, reasons, review date.
- A defensible claim has a number, a boundary, a date and a method.
- Ethics with a number on it survives the board.