Questions: Applied Ethics and Practical Reasoning

Question 1

A consequentialist and a deontologist independently analyze the same policy and both conclude it is permissible. What should we conclude?

• A. The policy is definitely correct — framework convergence proves it
• B. Framework convergence makes the verdict more robust, but doesn't guarantee it is correct
• C. One framework must have been applied incorrectly, since they rarely agree
• D. We can ignore the deontological analysis since consequentialism provides a more rigorous method

Answer: (B)

When multiple frameworks converge on the same verdict, it provides stronger support for that conclusion — the case has been tested from different angles and held up. But convergence doesn't prove correctness; both frameworks could share the same blind spot or rest on the same questionable assumption. Convergence is evidence, not proof. It does indicate where genuine moral consensus is possible and the verdict is more robust.

Question 2

A student believes that once they've adopted consequentialism, every applied ethics question can be resolved by simply calculating expected outcomes. What is the most important thing they are missing?

• A. They also need to consult deontological constraints before calculating outcomes
• B. Applying consequentialism requires substantial judgment about what counts, whose welfare matters, and how to aggregate — theory underdetermines practice
• C. Consequentialism only applies to personal decisions, not policy questions
• D. They must first determine whether the question is empirical or normative before applying any framework

Answer: (B)

Adopting a framework is only the beginning. Every application requires a chain of substantive judgments: whose welfare counts and how much, over what time horizon, how to handle uncertainty, whether to use act or rule consequentialism, how to aggregate competing interests. Different consequentialists answer these questions differently and reach different verdicts on the same case. The framework shapes the questions you ask — it doesn't mechanically yield answers.

Question 3

Different consequentialists applying the same consequentialist framework to the same case can reasonably reach different verdicts.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Applying consequentialism requires decisions about how to measure welfare, whose preferences count, over what time frame to evaluate outcomes, and how to aggregate competing interests. These interpretation choices are not determined by the framework itself — the framework underdetermines them. Two committed consequentialists who make different choices about aggregation or time horizon can reach genuinely different conclusions, both reasoning carefully.

Question 4

When ethical frameworks genuinely conflict on a practical question with no principled way to rank their verdicts, this represents a failure of applied ethics.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

Genuine moral conflict is not a failure — it is an honest description of a genuinely hard case. Applied ethics gives you a map of the moral terrain: which considerations favor which option, which values are in tension, what you sacrifice either way. The goal is not to eliminate judgment by producing a decision algorithm, but to exercise judgment with clarity and rigor. A clear-eyed description of an irresolvable dilemma is more valuable than a false resolution.

Question 5

Why doesn't adopting a single ethical framework — say, consequentialism — eliminate the need for judgment when applying it to real-world cases?

Model answer: A framework sets up the right questions (e.g., 'what produces the best outcomes?') but cannot answer the judgment calls required to apply it: whose welfare counts and how much, what counts as a relevant consequence, over what time horizon to evaluate, how to handle uncertainty, and how to aggregate competing interests. Different consequentialists answer these questions differently. The framework is a lens, not an algorithm — it shapes what you look for but requires substantive decisions at every step of application.

The messiness of real cases — uncertain outcomes, competing stakeholders, long causal chains, contested values — means judgment is irreducible. Applied ethics trains that judgment; it doesn't replace it. As the Explainer notes, 'theory underdetermines practice; judgment is not optional.' Learning an ethical theory gives you a structure for reasoning, not a machine for producing answers.