Philosophy for Absolute Beginners: Reasoning About Values, Fairness, and Responsibility

Normative Questions: Deciding What You Ought to Do

Some questions are mainly about facts (what is true). Normative questions are about what should be done, what is fair, and what people are responsible for. You can reason about these questions without memorizing ethical “theories” by using a few practical distinctions and a small set of reliable prompts.

Step 1: Separate Values, Rules, and Outcomes

Many disagreements stay stuck because people mix three different things. Pull them apart first, then reconnect them.

• Values (what matters): The things you care about protecting or promoting (e.g., safety, honesty, loyalty, equality, freedom, trust, learning, compassion).
• Rules (what to do): Action-guides or principles (e.g., “Don’t lie,” “Keep promises,” “Treat like cases alike,” “Don’t use people as tools,” “Report safety hazards”).
• Outcomes (what happens): The results of actions in the world (e.g., who gets help, who is harmed, what patterns are created, what incentives are set).

A quick diagnostic: if someone says “It’s wrong because it breaks the rule,” they are speaking in rules. If they say “It’s wrong because people get hurt,” they are speaking in outcomes. If they say “It’s wrong because it betrays trust,” they are speaking in values (trust) and often also relationships.

A Simple Worksheet for Any Moral Problem

Use this separation to avoid a common mistake: treating a value as if it automatically settles the rule. Example: valuing “honesty” does not automatically mean “tell every truth in every context,” because other values (safety, privacy, kindness) may constrain how honesty should be expressed.

Three Lenses as Question-Sets (Not Doctrines)

Instead of picking a single “ethical theory,” try three lenses. Each lens is a set of questions that highlights something you might otherwise miss. Good reasoning often uses all three and then explains how you balanced them.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Lens A: Consequences (Who Is Helped or Hurt?)

• Who benefits, and how much?
• Who is harmed, and how much?
• How likely are these outcomes?
• Are there long-term effects (trust, incentives, habits, future risks)?
• Are there alternatives with similar benefits and fewer harms?

Tip: Don’t just list outcomes—compare realistic options. Consequence reasoning is strongest when you consider probabilities and side effects, not just best-case hopes.

Lens B: Rights and Constraints (What Must Not Be Done?)

• Is anyone being used merely as a tool for someone else’s benefit?
• Are we respecting consent and basic boundaries?
• Are we violating a right (privacy, bodily safety, fair treatment, due process)?
• Are there constraints that should hold even if breaking them would “work”?
• If this were done to you, would it feel like a violation rather than a mere disappointment?

Tip: This lens is especially important when a tempting outcome would be achieved by coercion, deception, or scapegoating.

Lens C: Character and Relationships (What Kind of Person/Community Does This Build?)

• What traits does this action express (courage, honesty, compassion, fairness, loyalty, humility)?
• What habits does it reinforce in me?
• What does it do to trust and the quality of relationships?
• What kind of community norm does it encourage?
• Would I be comfortable if people I respect knew I chose this?

Tip: This lens catches “technically allowed” actions that still corrode trust, integrity, or care over time.

Case Clinic 1: Allocating Limited Seats on a Trip

Scenario: A school club has 10 seats on an educational trip. 18 students want to go. The trip is valuable for learning and networking. Some students have never had such opportunities; some have higher grades; some are leaders; one student has a disability that makes travel harder but still possible with planning. You are on the committee deciding who goes.

Step-by-Step Analysis

1) List options (at least three)

• Option 1: Highest grades get seats.
• Option 2: Lottery among all eligible students.
• Option 3: Need-based priority (e.g., fewer prior opportunities), then lottery for remaining seats.
• Option 4: Contribution-based (club service/leadership), with a reserved accommodation process.

2) Separate values, rules, outcomes

• Values in play: fairness, equal opportunity, merit/achievement, inclusion, transparency, educational benefit, trust in the club.
• Possible rules: “Treat similar cases similarly,” “Use a process people can accept,” “Avoid discrimination,” “Make criteria public in advance.”
• Likely outcomes: morale changes, perceived legitimacy, who gains skills, who feels excluded, future participation in the club.

3) Apply Lens A (Consequences)

• Grades-only: May reward achievement and possibly maximize academic performance on the trip, but can entrench advantage if grades correlate with prior support; may reduce morale among those who feel locked out.
• Pure lottery: Seen as impartial; may allocate seats to students who benefit less or are less prepared; still can be fair if the goal is equal chance.
• Need-based + lottery: Likely increases opportunity for those who have had fewer chances; may be seen as more socially beneficial; requires careful definition of “need” to avoid resentment.
• Contribution-based: Encourages club work; may exclude quieter members and can become political unless criteria are clear.

4) Apply Lens B (Rights/Constraints)

• Are any criteria discriminatory (explicitly or in effect)? If grades reflect unequal access to tutoring, is the process indirectly unfair?
• Is the process transparent and consistent, or does it allow favoritism?
• Is accessibility treated as a constraint (you must accommodate where reasonable) rather than a “nice extra”?

5) Apply Lens C (Character/Relationships)

• What kind of club culture is built: competitive, inclusive, service-oriented, or luck-based?
• Will members trust the committee next time?
• Does the decision encourage generosity and shared purpose, or status anxiety?

6) Choose a policy and justify the trade-offs

Example choice: Option 3 (need-based priority for those with fewer prior opportunities, with a transparent lottery for remaining seats, plus a clear accessibility plan).

Why this can be reasonable: It combines an equality-of-opportunity value (help those who have had fewer chances) with a fairness-of-process value (lottery reduces favoritism), while respecting constraints (non-discrimination, accessibility) and supporting a community norm of inclusion.

7) Stress-test with the strongest objection

Objection: “This ignores merit; students who worked hardest should be rewarded.”

Reply: Merit matters, but the trip is not only a reward; it is also an opportunity that can change future prospects. If the club’s purpose is educational access, prioritizing those with fewer prior opportunities better fits that purpose. Merit can still be recognized in other ways (awards, leadership roles, future trips) without making this scarce opportunity purely a prize.

Case Clinic 2: Reporting a Friend’s Mistake

Scenario: Your friend accidentally submits a spreadsheet at work with a formula error. The error makes the team’s results look better than they are. Your manager praises the team and is about to send the report to a client. Your friend notices the mistake and says, “Let’s not bring it up; it’ll probably never matter.” You are not the author, but you know the report is wrong.

Step-by-Step Analysis

1) Clarify the decision point

• What exactly must you decide? For example: (a) say nothing, (b) push your friend to correct it, (c) correct it yourself and inform the manager, (d) privately alert the manager without naming your friend, (e) delay sending until checked.

2) Separate values, rules, outcomes

• Values: honesty, loyalty, responsibility, trust, professional integrity, harm prevention, fairness to the client.
• Rules: “Don’t deceive clients,” “Correct known errors,” “Protect colleagues when possible,” “Report material risks.”
• Outcomes: client decisions based on false data, reputational damage, your friend’s consequences, team trust, future willingness to admit mistakes.

3) Apply Lens A (Consequences)

• If the client relies on the incorrect report, the harm could be significant (bad decisions, financial loss, safety risks depending on context).
• If corrected early, embarrassment is smaller and trust may be preserved.
• If you report directly, your friend may face discipline; if you handle it privately first, you may preserve the relationship while still preventing harm.

4) Apply Lens B (Rights/Constraints)

• The client has a strong claim not to be misled in a professional context.
• Deliberately allowing false information to be sent can cross a constraint: it becomes participation in deception, not mere silence.
• Your friend’s interest in avoiding embarrassment is real, but it may not override the constraint against misleading others.

5) Apply Lens C (Character/Relationships)

• What kind of colleague are you becoming if you normalize “hide mistakes”?
• What kind of friendship is it if loyalty means helping someone do something dishonest?
• What team culture is built: one where errors are corrected quickly, or one where people cover up?

6) Choose an action with an escalation plan

Example choice: First, tell your friend clearly and calmly that the error must be corrected before it goes out, and offer to help fix it immediately. If your friend refuses and the report is about to be sent, alert the manager that there is a formula error that needs a quick check (and if necessary, disclose details).

This approach aims to protect the client and the team while giving your friend a chance to do the right thing themselves.

7) Stress-test with the strongest objection

Objection: “Reporting it betrays your friend and could seriously harm their career over a small mistake.”

Reply: The betrayal would be allowing a client to be misled and letting the team take credit for incorrect results. The least damaging path is to correct it quickly and transparently before it spreads. Also, treating it as a correctable mistake (not a scandal) is easier when it is disclosed early; covering it up increases the risk of severe consequences later.

How to Write a Short Justification (Your Turn)

When you make a normative decision, practice writing a compact justification that shows your reasoning. Use this four-part format. Keep it short and specific.

Justification Template

• Chosen action: What you will do (one sentence).
• Key value(s): Name 1–3 values that matter most here.
• Main reason: The central consideration that supports your action (often one of the three lenses).
• Strongest objection + reply: State the best challenge to your view, then answer it.

Example Justification (Trip Seats)

• Chosen action: Prioritize students with fewer prior opportunities, then run a transparent lottery for remaining seats, with an accessibility plan.
• Key value(s): equal opportunity, fairness, inclusion.
• Main reason: This process reduces favoritism and spreads opportunity to those who benefit most, while remaining publicly defensible.
• Strongest objection + reply: Objection: it ignores merit. Reply: the trip is an opportunity, not only a reward; merit can be recognized elsewhere without concentrating scarce opportunities among the already-advantaged.

Example Justification (Friend’s Mistake)

• Chosen action: Ask my friend to correct the error immediately; if they refuse and the report is about to be sent, alert the manager that the numbers need correction.
• Key value(s): honesty, responsibility, loyalty (properly understood).
• Main reason: Preventing deception and harm to the client is a constraint that outweighs protecting my friend from embarrassment, and early correction minimizes damage for everyone.
• Strongest objection + reply: Objection: I’m risking my friend’s job. Reply: the risk is higher if the error is hidden; correcting it now frames it as a fixable mistake and protects the client and the team’s credibility.

Practice Prompts (Pick One)

• You find a lost wallet with cash and an ID. There is no camera. What should you do?
• Your group project partner did almost nothing but asks you to list them as equal contributor. What should you do?
• You can get a discount by claiming you are a student, but you are not. What should you do?

For your chosen prompt, fill in the four-part justification. Then check yourself: did you clearly separate values, rules, and outcomes, and did you use at least two of the three lenses?