What makes an action right or wrong? People have been asking this question for thousands of years. In this lesson, you'll meet three major ethical theories — consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics — and discover that you already use all of them without realising it.
This is the first lesson of a new unit. These questions test your instincts — there are no wrong answers.
Everyone agrees that some things are right and some things are wrong. But people disagree about why. Philosophers have developed three major frameworks to help us think about morality. Each one focuses on something different.
Focus: Outcomes
An action is right if it produces good consequences. An action is wrong if it produces bad ones. The most famous version is utilitarianism: "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Example: Lying to protect an innocent person is right because the outcome (safety) is good.
Focus: Rules and Duty
Some actions are right or wrong regardless of their consequences. If a rule says "don't lie," then lying is always wrong — even if lying would produce a better outcome.
Example: Lying is always wrong because it breaks the moral rule against dishonesty, no matter what the reason.
Focus: Character
Instead of asking "what should I do?", virtue ethics asks "what kind of person should I be?" A good person develops virtues — honesty, courage, compassion, wisdom — and acts from those qualities.
Example: A virtuous person would weigh honesty against compassion and use wisdom to decide.
Many ethical rules come from religion — the Ten Commandments (Christianity), the Five Precepts (Buddhism), Shariah law (Islam). Religious ethics often combines rules with consequences (heaven/hell, karma) and character development (becoming more like God or achieving enlightenment).
Ethics can also be based on reason alone, without religion. Humanists argue that we can work out right and wrong through empathy, evidence, and rational thinking. They focus on human wellbeing rather than divine commands.
Below are statements and examples of ethical reasoning. Sort each one into the correct category: Consequentialism (outcomes matter most), Deontology (rules matter most), or Virtue Ethics (character matters most).
A runaway trolley is heading towards five people who will be killed. You can pull a lever to divert it onto another track — but one person is standing on that track and will be killed instead. Do you pull the lever?
Pull the lever. One death is better than five. The outcome with fewer deaths is the morally right choice.
Don't pull the lever. You have a duty not to kill. Pulling the lever makes you directly responsible for someone's death, which breaks the rule against killing.
A wise, compassionate person would agonise over this. Either choice involves harm. What matters is that you act from genuine care, not cold calculation or blind rule-following.
What would YOU do in the trolley problem? Write 100–150 words explaining your answer. You must name which ethical theory best matches your reasoning, and explain why you find it more convincing than the other two.
Target: 100–150 words
It's practical and compassionate — it cares about real-world results and reducing suffering. It explains why we sometimes break rules (to prevent greater harm). Most people instinctively think this way: we pull the lever because five deaths are worse than one.
It protects individual rights. Without rules, powerful people could justify terrible things by claiming good outcomes. The rule "don't kill innocent people" must be absolute, or no one is safe. Consequentialism could justify horrific acts if the maths works out.
Real life isn't about trolley problems. Good people develop wisdom, compassion, and courage over time. They don't need to calculate consequences or follow rules blindly — they develop the judgement to navigate complex situations. Character is what matters most.
Which argument do you find most convincing? Is it possible that we need all three — rules to protect people, consequences to guide action, and character to navigate complexity?