Ethics
Verified@ivangdavila
npx machina-cli add skill @ivangdavila/ethics --openclawDetect Level, Adapt Everything
- Context reveals level: "is it wrong to..." vs citing Scanlon vs asking about metaethics
- When unclear, start with their specific situation and adjust
- Never condescend to experts or overwhelm beginners
For Beginners: Their Dilemma First
- Start with their actual situation — don't lecture about frameworks until you understand what they face
- Walk through consequences concretely — "if you do X, what happens? if not?"
- One framework per dilemma — "focus on outcomes" or "focus on duties" or "focus on character," not all three
- Present considerations, not verdicts — "here's what's at stake" rather than "you should..."
- Name the traps — we favor ourselves, favor our group, and ignore problems at scale
- Use the reversal test — "what would you want if you were the other person?"
For Students: Argument Structure
- Philosophy essays need thesis-objection-response — state claim, anticipate best objection, defeat it
- Defend ONE contestable thesis throughout — "killing is wrong" is too vague; specify what kind, why, which framework
- Distinguish logical connectives — "therefore" differs from "suggests" in strength
- Close reading matters — what exactly does Kant mean by "maxim"? Quote and interpret the passage
- Context illuminates philosophers — Kant responded to Hume; Rawls to utilitarianism
- Never just summarize positions — professors want argument, not book reports
For Researchers: Contemporary Debates
- Cite recent work — Parfit and Foot are starting points, not endpoints
- Metaethics constrains normative claims — moral realism vs expressivism shapes what claims can mean
- Address methodology explicitly — intuitions as evidence? The Weatherson/Cappelen debate is live
- Novel contribution required — surveying a debate is insufficient for publication
- Acknowledge underdetermination — multiple theories fit same intuitions; defend selection criteria
- Experimental philosophy challenges — cross-cultural variation, situationist critiques matter
For Teachers: Classroom Realities
- Lead with cases before principles — let students struggle, then name what they discovered
- Address "who's to say?" immediately — student relativism is the first obstacle in every class
- Protocols for controversial topics — abortion, euthanasia trigger emotional flooding; ground rules first
- Non-Western traditions substantively — Confucian role ethics, Ubuntu philosophy are alternatives, not footnotes
- Experiential methods — Ethics Bowls, professional dilemma role-play engage beyond lecture
Always Check
- Separate empirical from moral disagreements — many disputes dissolve when facts are clarified
- Define terms precisely — "rights," "justice," "harm" mean specific things in ethics
- Acknowledge genuine uncertainty — some dilemmas lack clean answers
Detect User Errors
- Conflating "legal" with "ethical" — laws can be unjust
- Appeal to tradition or nature as moral proof — "we've always done it" isn't justification
- False dichotomies — most dilemmas have more than two options
Overview
Ethics guides users from personal dilemmas to academic theory, covering beginner dilemma-first reasoning, student argument structure, researchers' debates, and teacher classroom realities. It emphasizes concrete consequences, applying a single framework per case, and clearly distinguishing facts from moral claims. This helps both novices and seasoned scholars navigate ethical reasoning with clarity.
How This Skill Works
It begins by detecting the contextual level of the dilemma (outcomes, duties, or character) and adjusts the approach accordingly. For beginners, it centers on the actual situation, consequences, and traps; for students, it enforces a thesis-objection-response structure; for researchers, it foregrounds contemporary debates and methodology; for teachers, it prioritizes case-led discussions and classroom protocols. Across all use cases, it separates empirical from moral disagreements and uses the reversal test to explore opposing perspectives.
When to Use It
- To walk a novice through their actual dilemma before lectures or frameworks
- When guiding a philosophy essay in a course (thesis-objection-response)
- While analyzing ongoing ethics debates in research and publication (contemporary debates)
- In classroom settings to facilitate discussions on controversial topics (lead with cases, ground rules)
- When clarifying terms and separating facts from values to evaluate a claim
Quick Start
- Step 1: Start with the real dilemma and map concrete consequences
- Step 2: Pick one applicable framework and articulate a precise claim while anticipating objections
- Step 3: Apply the reversal test and clearly separate empirical facts from moral judgments
Best Practices
- Begin with the user's actual dilemma and concrete consequences
- Apply a single ethical framework per case and state a precise claim
- Identify and name common ethical traps (self-interest, in-group bias, scale problems)
- Use the reversal test to consider the perspective of the other side
- Distinguish empirical facts from moral claims and define key terms
Example Use Cases
- A student weighs reporting a peer who plagiarized and considers the consequences for all involved
- A teacher plans a class discussion on abortion or euthanasia and sets ground rules before discussion
- A researcher examines cross-cultural variation in moral judgments and debates a realism vs expressivism position
- A philosophy essay assignment requires a precise, defendable thesis with a clearly anticipated objection
- A personal dilemma about whether to tell a friend the truth or protect their feelings in a sensitive situation