Skip to content

Comparing Ethical Frameworks

Run the Comparing Ethical Frameworks MicroSim Fullscreen
Edit in the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive MicroSim helps students compare how deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethics frameworks evaluate the same ethical scenario, identifying the reasoning process each framework uses.. 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-frameworks-comparison/main.html"
        height="450px"
        width="100%"
        scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Grade Level

9-12 (High School / IB TOK)

Duration

15-20 minutes

Prerequisites

  • Basic definitions of deontology (duty-based ethics), consequentialism (outcome-based ethics), and virtue ethics (character-based ethics)
  • Familiarity with at least one key thinker per framework (e.g., Kant, Mill, Aristotle)
  • Understanding that ethical frameworks provide different lenses for evaluating the same action

Learning Objectives

  • Analyze how deontological, consequentialist, and virtue ethics frameworks produce different verdicts on the same ethical scenario, and evaluate which framework provides the most compelling justification in a given case

Activities

  1. Exploration (5 min): Select a scenario from the dropdown and read the three-column comparison showing how each framework evaluates the situation. Notice the verdict each framework reaches (permissible, obligatory, or forbidden) and the reasoning behind it. Cycle through at least three scenarios and look for patterns: Do the frameworks ever agree? Which scenarios produce the sharpest disagreements?
  2. Guided Practice (10 min): In groups of three, assign each person one ethical framework. Select a scenario and have each person present their framework's verdict and reasoning (1-2 minutes each). After all three present, the group votes on which framework is most persuasive for that specific case. Record the vote and reasoning. Repeat with a second scenario -- did the same framework win, or did the context change which framework felt most compelling? Discuss: What does it mean if no single framework is always most persuasive?
  3. Assessment (5 min): Choose one scenario where the three frameworks disagree. Write a brief argument (4-6 sentences) for the framework you find least persuasive in that case. This exercise in steelmanning forces you to engage with perspectives you might initially reject.

Assessment

  • Accurate summary of all three frameworks' positions on a given scenario
  • Ability to identify the core reason why the frameworks diverge (e.g., focus on duty vs. outcomes vs. character)
  • Demonstrated capacity to steelman a position the student personally disagrees with

Quiz

Test your understanding with this review question.

1. A doctor has five patients who will die without organ transplants and one healthy patient whose organs could save all five. A virtue ethicist would most likely oppose harvesting the healthy patient's organs because:

  1. The outcome of saving five lives does not outweigh the loss of one life mathematically
  2. A person of good character -- a compassionate, just, and courageous person -- would not betray a patient's trust in this way
  3. There is a universal moral law that prohibits using people merely as means to an end
  4. Society would function worse if doctors could harvest organs from healthy patients
Show Answer

The correct answer is B. Virtue ethics evaluates actions by asking what a person of good character would do. A virtuous doctor would embody compassion, justice, and trustworthiness -- traits incompatible with betraying a patient's trust by harvesting their organs. Option C describes the deontological (Kantian) objection, option A reflects a consequentialist calculation, and option D describes a rule-consequentialist concern. Virtue ethics uniquely focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than the action's rules or outcomes.

Concept Tested: Virtue Ethics vs. Deontology and Consequentialism

References

  1. Aristotle. (c. 340 BCE/2009). The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford University Press.
  2. Mill, J. S. (1863/2001). Utilitarianism (2nd ed.). Hackett Publishing.
  3. Kant, I. (1785/2012). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
  4. Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2022). Virtue Ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.