Skills

Applied Ethics Case Analysis

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Analyse a real ethical dilemma — bioethics, AI ethics, business ethics, environmental ethics, or political philosophy — using at least two competing ethical frameworks (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, contractualism, or equivalent). Name each framework, cite primary or secondary philosophical sources, and demonstrate what each framework concludes about the dilemma and why they conflict. Proof is the written analysis plus a documented review by a philosophy academic or applied ethics practitioner who challenges your framework application — specifically, whether each framework is being applied correctly and whether you have identified the genuine point of ethical conflict. Their written questions and your written responses are required parts of the proof.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

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

Powstik Guide

A 600-word analysis of a real dilemma using two frameworks.

Steps

Pick a documented dilemma and cite it.
Apply the first framework fully.
Apply a contrasting second framework.
Say where they disagree and why.

Template

Dilemma (source):
Framework 1 analysis:
Framework 2 analysis:
Where they disagree:

What gets sent back

Hypothetical dilemma.
Only one framework.
Under 600 words.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Powstik Guide

A clear position on the dilemma, defended.

Steps

State your position in one sentence.
Explain why one framework wins in this case.
Find the strongest objection, not the easiest.
Respond to it in writing.

Template

Position (one sentence):
Why this framework here (case-specific reasons):
Strongest objection:
My response:

What gets sent back

'It depends' as a position.
A weak objection chosen to refute.
'I find it convincing' as justification.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Powstik Guide

Your ethical position, challenged by a philosopher.

Steps

Mark where your framework gives an odd result.
Book a philosopher, ethicist or ethics-trained practitioner.
Ask for three challenges to framework and position.
Record where you concede ground.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (framework application or position):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

Clarifying questions only.
Every challenge 'won'.
No revision after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Philosophy & Critical Thinking →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Analyse a real documented ethical dilemma using two frameworks

4 weeks

Proof required

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

Powstik Guide

A 600-word analysis of a real dilemma using two frameworks.

Steps

Pick a documented dilemma and cite it.
Apply the first framework fully.
Apply a contrasting second framework.
Say where they disagree and why.

Template

Dilemma (source):
Framework 1 analysis:
Framework 2 analysis:
Where they disagree:

What gets sent back

Hypothetical dilemma.
Only one framework.
Under 600 words.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

Masteryfor the dedicated

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Develop and write an argued ethical position

3 weeks

Proof required

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

Powstik Guide

A clear position on the dilemma, defended.

Steps

State your position in one sentence.
Explain why one framework wins in this case.
Find the strongest objection, not the easiest.
Respond to it in writing.

Template

Position (one sentence):
Why this framework here (case-specific reasons):
Strongest objection:
My response:

What gets sent back

'It depends' as a position.
A weak objection chosen to refute.
'I find it convincing' as justification.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend position under adversarial Q&A with a philosopher or ethicist

1 week

Proof required

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

Powstik Guide

Your ethical position, challenged by a philosopher.

Steps

Mark where your framework gives an odd result.
Book a philosopher, ethicist or ethics-trained practitioner.
Ask for three challenges to framework and position.
Record where you concede ground.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (framework application or position):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

Clarifying questions only.
Every challenge 'won'.
No revision after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.