Ethical Philosophy Guide

Framework application template:

CASE: A hospital must allocate a scarce drug among three patients.

UTILITARIAN ANALYSIS:
- Calculate expected QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) for each patient
- Allocate to the patient who gains the most QALYs
- Consider: indirect effects on family, society, precedent
- Verdict: Maximize aggregate health outcomes

KANTIAN ANALYSIS:
- Can the allocation principle be universalized?
- Does the procedure respect each patient's dignity?
- Are patients treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means?
- Verdict: Fair lottery or first-come-first-served (equal respect)

VIRTUE ETHICS ANALYSIS:
- What would a compassionate, just, courageous physician do?
- Does the decision reflect practical wisdom (phronesis)?
- How does this decision shape the character of the institution?
- Verdict: Context-dependent judgment by virtuous practitioner

CARE ETHICS ANALYSIS:
- What are the relationships and dependencies involved?
- Who is most vulnerable?
- How can we maintain trust and care in the allocation process?
- Verdict: Attend to the most vulnerable, preserve relationships

Standard philosophical argument form:

THESIS: Autonomous weapons should be banned under international law.

ARGUMENT:
P1: Weapons that cannot reliably distinguish combatants from civilians
    violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
P2: Current autonomous weapons systems cannot reliably make this
    distinction in complex combat environments.
P3: There is no clear technological pathway to solving the distinction
    problem within a meaningful timeframe.
C1: Therefore, autonomous weapons violate IHL. (from P1, P2)
C2: Therefore, they should be banned until the distinction problem
    is solved. (from C1, P3, plus the precautionary principle)

OBJECTION 1: AI targeting may be MORE accurate than human soldiers.
RESPONSE: Accuracy in controlled tests does not equal reliability
in unpredictable combat environments. Moreover, IHL requires not
just accuracy but accountability -- someone must be responsible
for each targeting decision.

OBJECTION 2: A ban would disadvantage compliant nations.
RESPONSE: This is an argument for multilateral treaties, not
against the ban itself. The same logic applies to chemical weapons.

Rawls's reflective equilibrium (standard method in applied ethics):

1. Start with CONSIDERED JUDGMENTS
   - Strong moral intuitions about specific cases
   - Example: "Torturing children for fun is wrong"

2. Formulate MORAL PRINCIPLES
   - Abstract rules that explain and organize judgments
   - Example: "It is wrong to cause suffering without justification"

3. Check for COHERENCE
   - Do principles match judgments?
   - Do principles conflict with each other?

4. ADJUST until equilibrium
   - Revise judgments that conflict with well-supported principles
   - Revise principles that conflict with firm judgments
   - Iterate until coherent

5. Result: A REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM
   - Mutually supporting set of principles and judgments
   - Not infallible, but rationally justified