Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Analyse a real documented ethical dilemma using two frameworks
4 weeks
Select a real documented ethical dilemma from published case studies in technology ethics, medical ethics, environmental ethics, or business ethics (or a real documented case from an ethics board ruling, a whistleblower case, or a product decision generating public ethical debate). Apply two or more named ethical frameworks to the dilemma: at minimum consequentialism and deontology; optionally virtue ethics, contractualism, or care ethics. Document each framework's verdict, where they agree, where they diverge, and why the divergence exists.
Proof required
Ethics analysis document (600+ words) identifying the real documented dilemma with a cited source, applying two or more named ethical frameworks with their specific verdicts, and explaining where and why the frameworks diverge.
What gets checked
- Dilemma is a real documented case with a cited source — not a fictional scenario invented for the analysis
- Both frameworks produce their own verdicts — not two ways of reaching the same conclusion
- Divergence is explained with reference to the frameworks' foundational principles, not just listed
Common mistakes
- Using a fictional dilemma — applied ethics is grounded in real documented cases because the messiness of real-world context is what makes ethical reasoning hard
- Applying two frameworks that both reach the same verdict — if the frameworks agree, a harder dilemma is needed to demonstrate genuine multi-framework competency
- Describing what each framework 'would say' in the abstract rather than applying it concretely to this specific dilemma's features
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify the dilemma is a real documented case — request the cited source
- Review both framework applications — confirm each produces its own verdict and they diverge in at least one meaningful way
- Check the divergence explanation — confirm it references the frameworks' foundational principles
Develop and write an argued ethical position
3 weeks
Take the dilemma from M1 and develop an original argued position: choose between (or synthesise across) the frameworks, justify the prioritisation with reasons specific to this dilemma, and address the strongest objection to your position. An argued position is not a compromise — it makes a specific claim and defends it. The objection must be the best case against the position, not a strawman. Document the position, the reasoning, and the counter-argument plus response.
Proof required
Position document (500+ words) stating a specific argued position on the M1 dilemma, justifying framework prioritisation with dilemma-specific reasons, and addressing the strongest objection with a documented response.
What gets checked
- Position makes a specific claim that could be wrong — not a statement that 'it depends on your values'
- Justification for framework prioritisation gives reasons specific to this dilemma, not generic rankings of frameworks
- Objection addressed is the genuine strongest case against the position — steelman, not strawman
Common mistakes
- Writing a position that hedges rather than claims — 'it depends on context' is an analysis outcome, not a position
- Addressing a weak objection because it is easier to refute — the objection must be the strongest available argument against the stated position
- Justifying framework choice with 'I find consequentialism more persuasive' without explaining why it is more persuasive for this specific dilemma
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Read the position — confirm it makes a specific falsifiable claim, not a value-relative observation
- Review the objection — confirm it is the strongest available case against the position
- Check the justification — confirm it is specific to the dilemma, not a generic framework preference
Defend position under adversarial Q&A with a philosopher or ethicist
1 week
Present the analysis and position from M1 and M2 to a philosopher, ethicist, or ethics-trained practitioner for a structured adversarial Q&A. The reviewer must challenge both the framework application and the position: 'why is this consequence relevant under consequentialism but not that one?', 'you claim X is the strongest objection but Y seems stronger — why did you not address Y?', 'your position requires assuming Z — what if Z is false?'. Document the challenges and your responses. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE for social-* outcomes: artifact alone is insufficient; reasoning must hold under live expert challenge.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's background and ethics credentials, at least three specific challenges to the analysis or position, your reasoning responses, and any revisions made or committed to based on the session.
What gets checked
- Reviewer has philosophy training or a professional role involving ethical reasoning (ethicist, bioethicist, technology ethics researcher, philosophy academic, or equivalent)
- At least three specific challenges to reasoning are documented with live responses
- At least one revision or planned revision is documented based on the Q&A
Common mistakes
- Presenting to someone who asks clarifying questions rather than challenges — the Q&A must involve genuine pushback on reasoning, not confirmation of understanding
- Treating the Q&A as a defence where every challenge is successfully beaten — a genuine challenge should sometimes result in acknowledging a weakness or revising a claim
- Not documenting specific challenges — 'they raised several good points' is not a Q&A record
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the reviewer has philosophy training or professional ethics credentials — ask for their institutional or professional context
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific challenges to reasoning (not factual questions) are documented
- Check that at least one revision is documented — zero revisions from a genuine adversarial Q&A is implausible