Examples of two moral reasoning methods used in case discussions
| A. Three Quick Ethics Questions* | |
| Test | Purpose |
| Impartiality: Would you agree to this action if you were in the other person's place? | Corrects for self-interest: invokes the golden rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ |
| Universalisability: Would you be comfortable if everyone acted as you propose to do, in this circumstance? | Adjusts for applicability: Invokes Kant's categorical imperative—that is, if a rule is difficult to maintain, investigate why. |
| Justifiability: Can I explain openly to the public, my superiors or peers my reasons for acting as I propose | Validates one's reasoning: How can you defend your reasoning if you're not willing to support it openly? |
| B. Developing a Well-Reasoned Response to a Moral Dilemma† | |
| 1. What are the issues or points in conflict? | |
| 2. Who are the stakeholders? | |
| 3. What is each stakeholder's obligation, duty or responsibility? | |
| 4. List the possible actions and consequences to each stakeholder. | |
↵* Adapted from Iserson.24
↵† Adapted from Bebeau et al23 (http://poynter.indiana.edu/mr/mr-main.shtml).