4 pages writing for persentation essay

1. Choose one of the business ethics cases to present. There are four cases posted in our Week 10 folder. Each member of your group should pick one case so that there’s no repeat presentations.

Read the case and identify its most important elements. What’s the ethical issue at stake? Who are the parties involved? Are certain facts in dispute? Gather all the relevant information so that you have a solid foundation to support your analysis.

Reread “Ethical Frameworks for Decision-making.” You’ll find this document in the Week 9 folder. It provides a helpful overview of three ethical frameworks you’ll need to address in your presentation. Pay particular attention to the “Applying the Frameworks to Cases” section of the doc.

4. Put together your slide deck. Your deck should cover four areas:

Summary: provide an overview of the essential facts of the case

Analysis: discuss each ethical decision-making framework and what actions they’d support

Recommendations: explain what your approach would be to dealing with the ethical dilemma

Discussion: prepare 3-5 questions to prompt discussion following your presentationpage1image5361216

5. Present to your group. Present your slides and facilitate a group discussion using the discussion questions you prepared. Your presentation should take 8-10 minutes

REPRINT R1704M
PUBLISHED IN HBR
JULY–AUGUST 2017

ARTICLE
HBR CASE STUDY AND
COMMENTARY
Follow Dubious Orders
or Speak Up?
An intern contemplates whether she should compromise
her values for a job.
by Sandra Sucher and Matthew Preble

Should Susan voice her concerns about Mr. Moon’s request?
Expert commentary by Josh Bersin and Ruwan Weerasekera

For the exclusive use of R. Bowse, 2020

.

This document is authorized for use only by Robert Bowse in 2020.

The phone line was relatively clear for a call between San Francisco and
Seoul, but she still asked Sukbin Moon to repeat himself.

Mr. Moon (as Susan had been told to call him by her half-Korean
father) was the Seoul office manager of Zantech, a technology security
firm with headquarters in Amsterdam. Susan was just starting her
summer internship with the company, and she was supposed to be in
Seoul working with Mr. Moon’s team, but there had been complications
with her visa. Emma Visser, the head of the company’s intern program,
had suggested she get started from afar.

One of her primary duties during the summer would be helping
Mr. Moon with market research by reaching out to other technology
firms, including direct competitors, for information on products,
services offered, customers, sales, and other data. He’d already e-mailed
her a list of target companies and contact names. Now he was telling her
that when she contacted people on the list, it would be best to use her
university e-mail address and introduce herself as an MBA student.

Perhaps sensing her hesitation, Mr. Moon added, “This is common
practice. It’s the only way to get accurate information.”

Susan shifted uncomfortably in her chair. This was her first
conversation with her new manager, and she wanted to make a
good impression.

“You won’t get the information otherwise,” Mr. Moon said, filling
the silence. “This is what other interns have done in the past. You don’t
need to worry.”

Still unsure how to respond—or how frank she could be since her
father had also told her that direct confrontation was frowned upon in

At first, Susan Kim wasn’t
sure whether she’d heard
her new manager correctly.

SANDRA SUCHER
is Professor of

Management Practice,
Joseph L. Rice III Faculty
Fellow at Harvard Business
School. MATTHEW PREBLE is a
case researcher at Harvard
Business School. HBR’s
fictionalized case studies
present problems faced by
leaders in real companies
and offer solutions from
experts. This one is based
on the HBS Case Study “An
Intern’s Dilemma” (case
no. 611041-PDF-ENG),
by Sandra J. Sucher and
Matthew Preble, which is
available at HBR.org.

CASE STUDY
FOLLOW DUBIOUS ORDERS OR
SPEAK UP?
AN INTERN CONTEMPLATES WHETHER
SHE SHOULD COMPROMISE HER
VALUES FOR A JOB. BY SANDRA SUCHER
AND MATTHEW PREBLE

CASE STUDY
CLASSROOM NOTES
Does knowing that the
company has done this
before make the request
more acceptable?
Sandra Sucher poses
this question when she
teaches this case.

FOR ARTICLE REPRINTS CALL 800-988-0886 OR 617-783-7500, OR VISIT HBR.ORG

A
LE

X
EI

V
EL

LA

JULY–AUGUST 2017 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 2 

For the exclusive use of R. Bowse, 2020.

This document is authorized for use only by Robert Bowse in 2020.

most Asian cultures—she simply said,
“OK.” She asked a few more questions
about the information she was
supposed to get and then hung up.

Susan had badly wanted this
internship. Her first job out of
college had been with a management
consultancy, and she’d been staffed
right away on a project with a
cybersecurity firm. From the start,
she was fascinated with the work. She
decided to go back to school to get
her MBA and planned to eventually
join a company on the forefront of
this exploding field. In an industry
expected to generate $170 billion
in revenue by 2020, she knew she’d
have many opportunities. And she
was elated when Zantech made
her an offer. If she played her cards
right, it could turn into a full-time
job after she graduated. But now Mr.
Moon was asking her to misrepresent
herself. She understood that
gathering competitive intelligence
required “creativity”—after all, you
were seeking information that your
rivals wanted to keep private—but
this seemed like it might be crossing
the line.

In one of her father’s many
mini-lectures on how business
works in Asia, he had mentioned
that expectations and even ethics
would be different in Seoul—but that
knowledge didn’t ease her anxiety
now. Was shading the truth “common
practice” in Korea or common practice
at Zantech?

PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE
When Susan woke up the next
morning, she already had several
e-mails from Mr. Moon, with sample
inquiries attached. She noticed right
away that he had cc’d Emma Visser
and a man whose name she didn’t
recognize. A quick search showed
that he was Zantech’s head of market
research for Asia.

She was supposed to start making
calls on Monday, and it was now
Thursday afternoon. She had to figure
out soon what she was going to do
about the request. Rather than answer
right away, she went out for a jog,
hoping to clear her head.
But 30 minutes in, she
was still ruminating

about what Mr. Moon had asked
her to do.

When her phone rang with a call
from her dad, she was happy for
the distraction—and hoped to hear
some sound advice. This was one of
their routines. He’d call her around
lunchtime on the East Coast, catching
her on her way to a morning class or
out for a run. Their conversations
were always short, but Susan looked
forward to them.

After she explained what was going
on, her dad started in on a monologue
about the importance of having a
good job and building a career. Susan
listened for a while until she couldn’t
stand it.

“Dad, stop with the life lessons.
I know I need this job.”

“I just want you to make a good
decision, honey,” he said.

“James thinks I should quit. He
says people have a right to be told the
truth when they’re asked to disclose
sensitive information,” she said. She
and her boyfriend had been together
for two years, but her father still hadn’t
entirely warmed up to him.

“That’s easy for him to say. Does
he plan to pay your rent this summer?
Or get you a job next year? Susie, you
need this internship. You know Mom
and I would love to help, but we’re on a
fixed income these days.”

“Fixed income” had been her dad’s
favorite phrase ever since he retired.
Her parents had supported her and her
brother through their undergraduate
years, but they’d made it crystal clear
that from then on, they were on their
own. She’d saved some money during
her three years of consulting before
business school, but not enough to pay
San Francisco rent.

“So you’re saying I should just do it?
Forget everything you taught me about
honesty and integrity and do whatever
they ask?” She knew she was being
melodramatic, but she often fell into
that behavior with her parents.

“Susie, keep this in perspective.
What Mr. Moon has asked you to do
isn’t illegal. It’s not even untruthful.
You are an MBA student. And if one of
these contacts asks whether you have

any corporate affiliation, you can
always tell the full truth. Besides,
it sounds like it’s all aboveboard at

Should a company’s
practices differ across its
offices? Many globalizing
firms have difficulty
effectively implementing
a common set of values
and behaviors.

Many people think that the
hardest part of an ethical
challenge is deciding
whether you believe an
act is right or wrong. But
it is equally important
to decide exactly how to
handle a situation once
you’ve determined what
you believe.

Sucher lays out four
questions for her students
to consider should they
be confronted with an
ethical dilemma: (1) Am
I comfortable with the
likely consequences of this
action? (2) Am I fulfilling
my duties and respecting
others’ rights? (3) Am I
respecting the community
and its norms? (4) Am
I meeting my and my
company’s commitments?

C
O

PY
R

IG
H

T
©

2
0

17
H

A
RV

A
R

D
B

U
SI

N
ES

S
SC

H
O

O
L

PU
BL

IS
H

IN
G

C
O

R
PO

R
AT

IO
N

.
A

LL
R

IG
H

TS
R

ES
ER

VE
D

.

CASE STUDY FOLLOW DUBIOUS ORDERS OR SPEAK UP?

3  HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW JULY–AUGUST 2017

For the exclusive use of R. Bowse, 2020.
This document is authorized for use only by Robert Bowse in 2020.

Zantech. If the head of market research
knows about it, then you know that
Mr. Moon isn’t hiding anything.”

“I just don’t feel comfortable with it,
Dad. It seems like lying. I think I need
to go back to Mr. Moon and tell him
how I feel. Or maybe talk to the intern
manager, Emma.”

“Those are perfectly good options.
Just be sure to tread carefully. You
don’t want them to think you’re
difficult to work with.”

She sighed loudly into the phone.
“The irony is not lost on me that a
company that tries to prevent people
from misrepresenting who they are just
asked me to misrepresent who I am.”

“Welcome to the real work world,
honey. It’s full of contradictions.”

FUTURE EMPLOYERS
“I thought you’d be in Korea by now,”
Melinda Sussman said, as she sat down
at a café table. Melinda was a principal
at the consultancy where Susan had
previously worked. Staffed on a few
of the same projects, the two had hit
it off and subsequently tried to work
together whenever they could. When
Susan decided to leave for business
school, Melinda had written her a
recommendation letter, and since
both were still in San Francisco, they’d
stayed in touch.

“Not yet. Thank you so much for
meeting me on the weekend.”

Susan explained about the visa
issues, her conversation with Mr. Moon,
and her debates with James and her
father. “I’ve even talked to the CEO.”

“You talked to the CEO? About this?”
“No, no. Not about this. He just

called yesterday to apologize about the
visa issues.” Peter Carlssen had come
to Berkeley last fall to participate in
a panel discussion on cybersecurity.
When Susan had approached him
afterward, he told her that he’d
been impressed with her questions
and encouraged her to apply for the
internship. She’d been shocked to hear
his voice on the phone and wondered if
he typically checked in with interns or
was taking a special interest in her. The
conversation with Mr. Moon on her
mind, she’d been tempted to bring up
the issue with the CEO—but didn’t.

“I was thinking maybe I could go
to him about this,” she told Melinda.

“When I saw him speak, he talked
about how important ethics were in
this field.”

“I’m sure he has bigger fish to fry
than this. Besides, ‘intern rats on
manager to CEO’? I don’t think that’s
the kind of reputation you want to get.
How big is this company?”

“About 1,500 employees worldwide,
but it’s a really friendly place. Other
than this situation, I’ve had nothing
but positive interactions—from my
interviews to my conversations with
HR and even my first few e-mails with
Mr. Moon. Everyone’s gone out of their
way to make me feel welcome. There
weren’t any red flags.”

“There’s no way you can put the
project off until you get over there?”
Melinda asked. “Or what about talking
to this Emma person? She’s your
manager too, right?”

“That’s not entirely clear. It seems
like I report to both of them. I just
couldn’t get a read on Mr. Moon over
the phone, and since he cc’d Emma
on that e-mail, it’s not like she doesn’t
know what he’s asked me to do.”

“This would, of course, be easier
if you knew how any of these people
were going to respond to questions.
If you raise this issue with anyone—
Mr. Moon, Emma, HR—you have
to be prepared for the worst. It’s
possible that they’ll allow you to get
the information in another way, but
it’s also possible—and I don’t want to
scare you—that they’ll rescind your
internship offer. You’re not even over
there yet, so that would probably be
easy to do.”

“I’d hate to have to explain that to
my parents.”

“And future employers. I’m sure
I don’t have to tell you that your
career prospects could be on the line
here. But if you agree to misrepresent
yourself and are discovered by these
companies, you might have trouble
finding any job in your field at all.
And you have some obligation to the
university, too. If you present yourself
as a student working on a project for
school, and these companies discover
there’s no such thing, it could reflect
badly on your MBA program.”

Susan’s shoulders slumped; she
hadn’t thought of that. She really didn’t
know what to do.

Given Susan’s previous
interactions with the CEO,
does it make sense for
her to talk to him directly
about this issue? Would he
be open to hearing about
her concerns?

SEE COMMENTARIES ON THE
NEXT PAGE

If she decides to speak
to someone at Zantech
about the issue, what,
exactly, should she say?
How should she frame her
concerns about ethics?
What alternatives, if any,
should she propose?

If Susan shares her
concerns with Mr. Moon
about not disclosing her
connection to Zantech,
does she risk looking like
someone who won’t be
easy to work with in the
future?

FOR ARTICLE REPRINTS CALL 800-988-0886 OR 617-783-7500, OR VISIT HBR.ORG

JULY–AUGUST 2017 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 4 

For the exclusive use of R. Bowse, 2020.
This document is authorized for use only by Robert Bowse in 2020.

MR. MOON IS asking Susan to do something
inappropriate. While it may seem like no
big deal, soliciting information without
disclosing your identity is unethical, and
I’m not surprised she feels uneasy. Even
though she is young and an intern, I believe
she should tell Mr. Moon and Emma Visser,
the manager in Amsterdam, that she is
uncomfortable misrepresenting herself.

The first decade of your career is an
important time to learn about business,
figure out the type of roles and jobs you
like, and clarify what your values are. I was
fortunate to get a grounding in ethics at IBM
in the 1980s. Honesty and respect were part
of the company’s ethos, and there was no
tolerance for hiding information or saying
anything that wasn’t true. That foundation
helped me navigate many gray-area
situations, both as a young professional and
in more-senior roles, over the course of my
four-decade career. Susan should look for
the same kind of employer—one that will
help her get the right start professionally
and gain a clear understanding of what
good business is and what it isn’t.

I would recommend that she do some
research on Zantech: Is this the type of
company that reflects the values she
holds dear? She can look at Glassdoor and
other sites where employees give inside
perspectives on their companies. Have
employees reported that they were asked
to do unethical things? Have competitors,
customers, or suppliers ever complained
about its business practices? Does the
company have outstanding legal issues?
If the answer to those questions is yes, she
may decide this company is not for her.

If her research shows that Zantech is
an ethical, open, friendly place to work,
she should simply voice her concerns. She
should send an e-mail to both Mr. Moon
and Emma Visser explaining her discomfort
with the assignment. Her father may be
right that frankness is frowned upon in
Korea, but if she contacts only Emma, she is
losing the opportunity to address the issue
with her manager—and he is the person she

would work for.

Her e-mail should be positive and
focus on the risks to the company as
a whole, not simply her own feelings.
She might say something like, “I greatly
appreciate the opportunity to do this
work with you, and this project is quite
interesting. However, I’m concerned
that if we don’t disclose the fact that I’m
working for Zantech and the word leaks
out, it will reflect poorly on the firm.”
Her tone should be collaborative and
constructive, and she should use the
word “we” as much as possible.

Ideally—and most likely—both
Mr. Moon and Emma will respect
her for speaking up, understand her
position, and allow her to approach the
work in a different way. It might also
prompt Mr. Moon to think more about
what Zantech is asking her to do. At
Deloitte, our newest research shows that
companies focused on mission, purpose,
and ethical behavior consistently

outperform their peers over a long period
of time. Firms with that kind of culture
encourage people to voice their concerns
and are open to discussions about ethical
issues. Corporate scandals erupt with
alarming frequency; in most cases they are
devastating to the company’s brand and
reputation. All too often, people inside
those firms who could have sounded the
alarm remained silent, perhaps assuming
that no one would listen.

If Mr. Moon and Emma ignore Susan’s
concerns, it’s a signal that she should
start looking for employment elsewhere.
Tech-savvy MBAs are in high demand, and
she has a long career ahead of her. If she
compromises her values now, it will only
haunt her later.

SHOULD SUSAN
VOICE HER

CONCERNS ABOUT
MR. MOON’S

REQUEST?
THE EXPERTS

RESPOND

JOSH BERSIN IS
THE FOUNDER

AND PRINCIPAL
OF BERSIN

BY DELOITTE.

SHE SHOULD SEND AN
E‑MAIL TO MR. MOON AND
EMMA VISSER EXPLAINING
HER DISCOMFORT.

CASE STUDY FOLLOW DUBIOUS ORDERS OR SPEAK UP?

5  HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW JULY–AUGUST 2017

For the exclusive use of R. Bowse, 2020.
This document is authorized for use only by Robert Bowse in 2020.

SUSAN SHOULDN’T BLINDLY follow orders.
But as an intern, she does need to get
the work done. So my advice is that she
find an alternative way to complete
Mr. Moon’s project that is ethical, legal,
and transparent.

When I think about ethical issues,
I picture a 2×2 matrix with legality on one
axis and ethics on the other. I love when
things fit unequivocally into the legal and
ethical box, but that is not always the case
in business. It is common—and difficult—
to face situations that don’t require you
to violate any laws or regulations but do
go against your values. I’ve faced many
murky situations in my career—including
conducting internal investigations into
the biggest fraud and misconduct cases in
bank history—and I always managed to act
on my principles.

If I were in Susan’s shoes, I certainly
wouldn’t start calling Zantech’s
competitors and misrepresenting myself.
But I wouldn’t immediately confront
Mr. Moon or Emma Visser, either. Different
organizations and countries have different
norms, and she doesn’t yet know enough
about the company or working in Korea to
question the way things are done. Indeed,
immediately challenging Mr. Moon’s
request and declaring it unethical could
hurt her in the long run.

But capitulation or confrontation aren’t
her only choices. Instead, she should
suggest a workaround—that is, she should
present not a problem but a solution, as
any good intern or employee should.

How might she get the information
she needs without hiding who she is? One
option would be to talk with people at
Zantech’s most loyal clients, who no doubt
evaluated other software vendors before
signing on with the firm. Customers love
to be consulted, and the discussions
would help her gather intelligence on
competitors and reverse engineer a
product comparison.

Another option would be to talk with
third-party firms like IBM, PwC, and
independent consultancies that help install

Zantech’s products, or with analyst firms
whose job it is to evaluate the competitive
landscape. Their knowledge would be
similar to that of customers, and they may
be even more willing to outline Zantech’s
relative strengths and weaknesses.

A third alternative would be to look
inside Zantech for information sources.
Of the 1,500 people who work there,
surely some came from competitors and
might offer insights that could be helpful
when aggregated. Some may be bound by
confidentiality—and she should observe
that, of course—but many may have
valuable information that the company
can easily and freely use.

These approaches would not only
save Susan from her ethical dilemma, but
they’re also likely to be more effective,
since a cold call from an intern to a
competitor is, in my opinion, highly
unlikely to yield any useful information.
I’m not suggesting she tell Mr. Moon, “This
will never work,” but she could volunteer
to test the approach on Zantech itself,
making a few calls into the company, to
see whether his proposed tactics work
or not. That would also reveal how well
the company’s own employees protect
sensitive competitive information.

Like many executives, I’ve built my
reputation on my integrity, and I guard it
jealously. But I also take pride in my ability
to get things done. This is the balance that
Susan needs to strike.

And if she’s able to resolve the dilemma
satisfactorily, she should remember that
an internship is an extended interview.
She should be evaluating Zantech as much
as its executives are evaluating her. She
needs to ask herself: Is this a firm I can
work for? Do my values match with those
of the company? The answers to these
questions won’t come from a mentor,
parent, or partner. She needs to make her
own decision.

RUWAN WEERASEKERA IS A
NONEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IN

FINANCIAL SERVICES, HEALTH
CARE, AND EDUCATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS AND A FORMER
MANAGING DIRECTOR AT UBS.

“
COMMENTS FROM THE
HBR.ORG COMMUNITY
Don’t Worry
If someone called me
and asked for sensitive
information about my
company, I wouldn’t give it,
regardless of whether the
person identified herself as
a student or an employee.
Susan shouldn’t be
concerned about deceiving
others, because she won’t
get the information she
needs anyway.
Ardita M. Gjeçi
head of change
management, GJEÇI

Speak Up
I’ve managed interns at
a large company, and
I always encourage people
at any level to challenge
superiors in a respectful
way. Their questions can
help the company improve.
Good managers will be
receptive to input.
Terrel Fish
project manager,
MKEC Engineering

Quit the Internship
Companies with strong
values would never engage
in such practices and
would provide employees
access to legal advice
for handling proprietary
information from rivals.
If this firm would ask an
intern to do this, imagine
what it might ask of its
employees. Walk away and
don’t look back.
Sharon Hoeting
consumer insights director,
General Mills

HBR Reprint R1704M
Reprint Case only R1704X

Reprint Commentary only R1704Z

FOR ARTICLE REPRINTS CALL 800-988-0886 OR 617-783-7500, OR VISIT HBR.ORG

JULY–AUGUST 2017 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 6 

For the exclusive use of R. Bowse, 2020.
This document is authorized for use only by Robert Bowse in 2020.

1

SCH-MGMT 192T: TRANSITIONS: Big Ideas in Business

Frameworks for Ethical Decision-making

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues. It also requires a practiced
method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should
impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision making is essential. When
practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without
consulting the specific steps. This is one reason why we can sometimes say that we have a “moral
intuition” about a certain situation, even when we have not consciously thought through the issue.

We can be practiced at making ethical judgments, just as we can be practiced at playing the piano, in
which case we can sit and play well “without thinking.” However, it’s not always advisable to follow our
immediate intuitions, especially in complicated or unfamiliar situations. Here our method for ethical
decision-making should help us recognize these new and unfamiliar situations and act accordingly.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we must rely on discussion and
dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the
insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

Three Frameworks

Below we discuss three broad frameworks to guide ethical decision-making: the Consequentialist
Framework; the Duty Framework; and the Virtue Framework. While each of these frameworks is useful
for making ethical decisions, none is perfect. Knowing the advantages and disadvantages of the
frameworks will be helpful in deciding which is most useful in approach the particular situation with
which we are presented.

1. The Consequentialist Framework
In the Consequentialist Framework, we focus on the future effects of the possible courses of action,
considering the people who will be directly or indirectly affected. We ask about what outcomes are
desirable in a given situation and consider ethical conduct to be whatever will achieve the best
consequences. The person using the Consequentialist Framework desires to produce the most good.

Among the advantages of this ethical framework is that focusing on the results of an action is a
pragmatic approach. It helps in situations involving many people, some of whom may benefit from the
action, while others may not. Of course, it’s not always possible to predict the consequences of an
action, so some actions that are expected to produce good consequences might actually end up harming
people. Additionally, people sometimes react negatively to the use of compromise—an inherent part of
this approach—and recoil from the implication that the end justifies the means. The Consequentialist
Framework also does not include a pronouncement that certain things are always wrong, as even the
most heinous actions may result in a good outcome for some people. As a result, this framework allows
for these actions to be considered “ethical,” which some may find problematic.

2

2. The Duty Framework
In the Duty Framework, we focus on the duties and obligations that we have in a given situation and
consider what ethical obligations we have and what things we should never do. Ethical conduct is
defined by doing one’s duties and doing the right thing, and the goal is performing the correct action.

This framework has the advantage of creating a system of rules that has consistent expectations of all
people; if an action is ethically correct or a duty is required, it would apply to every person in a given
situation. This even-handedness encourages treating everyone with equal dignity and respect.

The Duty Framework also focuses on following moral rules or duty regardless of outcome, so it allows
for the possibility that one might have acted ethically, even if there is a bad result. Therefore, this
framework works best in situations where there is a sense of obligation or in those in which we need to
consider why duty or obligation mandates or forbids certain courses of action.

However, this framework also has its limitations. First, it can appear cold and impersonal, in that it might
require actions that are known to produce harms, even though they are strictly in keeping with a
particular moral rule. It also does not provide a way to determine which duty we should follow if we are
presented with a situation where two or more duties conflict. Last, it can also be rigid in applying the
notion of duty to everyone regardless of their personal situation (i.e., their ability to perform the duty).

3. The Virtue Framework
In the Virtue Framework, we try to identify the character traits (either positive or negative) that might
motivate us in a given situation. We are concerned with what kind of person we should be and what our
actions indicate about our character. We define ethical behavior as whatever a “virtuous person” would
do in the situation, and we seek to develop similar virtues.

Obviously, this framework is useful in situations that ask what sort of person one should be. As a way of
making sense of the world, it allows for a wide range of behaviors to be called ethical, as there might be
many different types of good character and many paths to developing it. As a result, it considers all parts
of human experience and their role in ethical deliberation, as it believes that all of one’s experiences,
emotions, and thoughts can influence the development of one’s character.

Although the Virtue Framework takes into account a variety of human experience, it also makes it more
difficult to resolve disputes, as there can often be more disagreement about virtuous traits than ethical
actions. Also, because the framework looks at character, it’s not particularly good at helping someone to
decide what actions to take in a given situation or determine the rules that would guide one’s actions.
Last, because it emphasizes the importance of role models and education to ethical behavior, it can
sometimes merely reinforce current cultural norms as the standard of ethical behavior.

Putting the Frameworks Together

By framing the situation or choice you are facing in one of the ways presented above, specific features
will be brought into focus more clearly. However, it should be noted that each framework has its limits:
by focusing our attention on one set of features, other important features may be obscured. Hence it’s
important to be familiar with all three frameworks and to understand how they relate to each other—
where they may overlap, and where they may differ.

The chart below is designed to highlight the main contrasts between the three frameworks:

3

Feature Consequentialist Duty Virtue

Deliberative
Process

What kind of outcomes
should I produce (or try to
produce)?

What are my obligations in
this situation, and what
are the things I should
never do?

What kind of person
should I be (or try to
be), and what will my
actions show about my
character?

Focus Directs attention to the
future effects of an action,
for all people who will be
directly or indirectly
affected by the action.

Directs attention to the
duties that exist prior to
the situation and
determines obligations.

Attempts to discern
character traits (virtues
and vices) that are, or
could be, motivating the
people involved in the
situation.

Definition of Ethical
Conduct

Ethical conduct is the
action that will achieve the
best consequences.

Ethical conduct involves
always doing the right
thing and never failing to
do one’s duty.

Ethical conduct is
whatever a fully virtuous
person would do in the
circumstances.

Motivation Produce the most good. Perform the right action. Develop one’s character.

Because the answers to the three main types of ethical questions asked by each framework are not
mutually exclusive, each framework can be used to make at least some progress in answering the
questions posed by the other two.

In many situations, all three frameworks will result in the same—or at least very similar—conclusions
about what you should do, although they will typically give different reasons for reaching those
conclusions. However, because the frameworks focus on different ethical features, the conclusions
reached through one framework will occasionally differ from those reached through the others.

Applying the Frameworks to Cases

When using the frameworks to make ethical judgments about specific cases, it will be useful to follow
the process below.

Recognize an Ethical Issue
One of the most important things to do at the beginning of ethical deliberation is to locate, to the extent
possible, the specifically ethical aspects of the issue at hand. Sometimes what appears to be an ethical
dispute is really a dispute about facts or concepts. For example, some Utilitarians1 might argue that the
death penalty is ethical because it deters crime and thus produces the greatest amount of good with the
least harm. Other Utilitarians, however, might argue that the death penalty does not, in fact, deter
crime, and thus produces more harm than good. The argument here is over which facts argue for the
morality of a particular action, not simply over the morality of particular principles. All Utilitarians would
abide by the principle of producing the most good with the least harm.

1 Utilitarians are a type of Consequentialist thinker who believe that one’s actions should be deemed good or bad
based solely upon the amount and degree of pleasure and/or pain they would produce.

4

Consider the Parties Involved
Another important aspect to reflect upon are the various individuals and groups who may be affected by
your decision. Consider who might be harmed or who might benefit.

Gather All of the Relevant Information
Before taking action, it’s a good idea to make sure that you’ve gathered all of the pertinent information,
and that all potential sources of information have been consulted.

Formulate Actions and Consider Alternatives
Evaluate your decision-making options by asking the following questions:

• Which action will produce the most good and do the least harm? (Consequentialist approach)

• Which action is in line with my moral obligations to others? (Duty approach)

• Which action leads me to act as the sort of person I would like to be? (Virtue approach)

Decide, Act, and Reflect
After examining all of the potential actions, consider which best addresses the situation. Make a choice,
and then ask yourself: How do I feel about it? Finally, act. Many ethical situations are uncomfortable
because we can never have all of the information. Even so, in the end we must take action.

Last, evaluate the results of your decision. What were the intended and unintended consequences?
Would you change anything now that you have seen the consequences?

Conclusion

Making ethical decisions requires sensitivity to the ethical implications of problems and situations. It
also requires practice. Having a framework for ethical decision-making is essential. We hope that the
information above is helpful in developing your own experience in making choices.

This reading was excerpted from “Making Choices: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions,” an artifact of the
STS Program at Brown University. Its primary contributors include Sheila Bonde and Paul Firenze, with critical input
from James Green, Margot Grinberg, Josephine Korijn, Emily Levoy, Alysha Naik, Laura Ucik and Liza Weisberg. It
was last revised in May, 2013. The full article may be accessed here.

https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/sites/brown.edu.academics.science-and-technology-studies/files/uploads/Framework