Skip to content

Anatomy of an Ethical Dilemma

Run the Anatomy of an Ethical Dilemma MicroSim Fullscreen
Edit in the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive MicroSim helps students deconstruct an ethical dilemma by identifying the competing moral principles, stakeholders, and possible courses of action.. It supports the learning objectives in Chapter: Ethics and Values in Knowledge.

How to Use

Use the interactive controls below the drawing area to explore the visualization. Hover over elements for additional information and click to see detailed descriptions.

Iframe Embed Code

You can add this MicroSim to any web page by adding this to your HTML:

1
2
3
4
<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/theory-of-knowledge/sims/ethical-dilemma-anatomy/main.html"
        height="450px"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Grade Level

9-12 (High School / IB TOK)

Duration

15-20 minutes

Prerequisites

  • Understanding of the difference between ethical claims and factual claims
  • Familiarity with at least two ethical frameworks (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics)
  • Awareness that ethical dilemmas involve competing values or principles, not simply right vs. wrong

Learning Objectives

  • Analyze the structure of ethical dilemmas by identifying competing principles, stakeholder perspectives, and the role of ethical frameworks in shaping different conclusions

Activities

  1. Exploration (5 min): Select a dilemma from the simulation and explore the branching visualization. Identify the competing ethical principles at the root of the conflict (e.g., individual autonomy vs. collective welfare). Click on each stakeholder to see how the dilemma looks from their perspective. Notice how the same facts lead to different conclusions depending on whose interests are centered.
  2. Guided Practice (10 min): In pairs, choose one dilemma and toggle between different ethical framework lenses (e.g., deontological, consequentialist, virtue ethics). For each framework, trace the reasoning path: What principle does it prioritize? What action does it recommend? Where does it conflict with another framework's recommendation? Together, map out at least two branching paths and identify the precise point where they diverge. Discuss: Is the disagreement about facts, values, or both?
  3. Assessment (5 min): Select a dilemma you have not yet explored. Without using the framework toggle, independently identify: (a) the two competing principles, (b) at least two stakeholders with different perspectives, and (c) which ethical framework you find most compelling for this case and why. Write your analysis in 4-6 sentences.

Assessment

  • Accurate identification of competing principles at the core of the dilemma
  • Demonstration that the student can articulate at least two stakeholder perspectives without dismissing either
  • Reasoned justification for a position that references a specific ethical framework

Quiz

Test your understanding with this review question.

1. In a classic trolley problem, a deontologist and a consequentialist disagree about whether to divert the trolley. Their disagreement is fundamentally about:

  1. Whether the five people on the track deserve to be saved
  2. Whether the action of diverting the trolley or the outcome of saving five lives is morally more relevant
  3. Whether trolley problems are realistic enough to be worth discussing
  4. Whether ethics can be studied objectively
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. The core of the trolley problem disagreement lies in what each framework treats as morally primary. A consequentialist focuses on outcomes -- saving five lives produces more good than saving one -- while a deontologist focuses on the moral nature of the action itself -- actively diverting the trolley makes you causally responsible for the one person's death, which violates a duty not to use people as means. The dilemma reveals the fundamental tension between action-centered and outcome-centered ethical reasoning.

Concept Tested: Competing Ethical Principles in Dilemmas

References

  1. Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5-15.
  2. Thomson, J. J. (1985). The trolley problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395-1415.
  3. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.