Ethics isn't just theory. Real people face difficult choices every day where different values clash. In this lesson, you'll apply the ethical frameworks from Lessons 1–4 to real-world dilemmas and discover that the framework you choose determines the answer.
These questions review Lesson 4. Use what you remember.
Real dilemmas don't come with clear labels. Different ethical frameworks give different answers. Here are three situations. As you read, notice how your instinct pulls you in different directions.
A company develops a life-saving drug for childhood cancer. Testing on animals causes suffering. Without testing, we can't know if it's safe. Should the company test it on animals?
Consequentialist: Yes. Saving thousands of children's lives outweighs animal suffering.
Deontologist: We have an absolute duty not to cause suffering. Test on volunteers instead, or don't develop the drug.
Virtue Ethicist: A wise, compassionate person would agonise over this. Compassion applies to animals too, but so does the duty to heal human suffering.
A billionaire has $100 billion. Charities say that $10 billion could end world poverty for one year. Should wealthy people give most of their money away?
Utilitarian: Yes. One billion people's survival matters more than one person's luxury.
Rights-based: No. They earned their money. Forcing them to give it violates their rights.
Religious virtue: Generosity is a virtue in Christianity and Islam. Wealth is a trust from God, not a right to keep.
Your friend is in danger from an abusive person. That person asks you: "Where is your friend?" Telling the truth will get your friend hurt. A lie will protect them. Should you lie?
Absolute Rule: Lying is always wrong. Never break the rule, no matter the consequence.
Situational: Love and protection matter more than a rule. The lie is right because it protects the innocent.
Buddhist: Right Speech means honest speech — but also speech that causes no harm. These conflict. Wisdom and compassion must guide you.
Below are 12 statements about how to handle ethical dilemmas. Sort them into four categories based on which ethical approach they reflect.
Choose ONE of the three dilemmas from the Encounter tab. Write 200–250 words explaining what different ethical frameworks would say about it, and which framework you find most convincing. Name the frameworks clearly.
Target: 200–250 words
If good people using good reasoning reach different moral conclusions, does that prove there are no objective moral facts? Or does it show that morality is always subjective — just opinion?
Some things really are right or wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. A medical researcher torturing children is wrong — full stop — even if they claim it will save millions. Without objective moral facts, we can't say slavery was wrong or that genocide is evil. Religions like Christianity and Islam claim to teach objective moral truth from God. If morality is just opinion, then on what grounds do we criticise other cultures?
Look at the three dilemmas — people disagree using reason, religion, and experience. If morality were objective, everyone would agree. But they don't. Every culture has different moral rules. What the West calls "right" the East might call "wrong." Each person brings their own values, upbringing, and beliefs. Maybe "objective morality" is just what one group has power to enforce. True moral maturity means respecting that others see things differently.
Perhaps core human values are universal — reducing suffering, protecting the weak, telling the truth — but how we apply them varies. Two people might both value compassion but reach different answers in a dilemma. This doesn't mean morality is completely subjective; it means complex situations don't have easy answers. Moral disagreement is a sign that ethics requires wisdom, not just calculation.
Do you think morality has fixed rules that don't change, or does it depend on perspective? Can both be true?