# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do.

We all have an image of our better selves-of how we are when we act ethically or are "at our best." We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levels-acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves-as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It requires knowledge, skills, and habits.

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

Ethics is not the same as feelings. Feelings do provide important information for our ethical choices. However, while some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, others feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And, often, our feelings will tell us that it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is difficult.

Ethics is not the same as religion. Many people are not religious but act ethically, and some religious people act unethically. Religious traditions can, however, develop and advocate for high ethical standards, such as the Golden Rule.

Ethics is not the same thing as following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt-a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may also have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas and may be slow to address new problems.

Ethics is not the same as following culturally accepted norms. Cultures can include both ethical and unethical customs, expectations, and behaviors. While assessing norms, it is important to recognize how one's ethical views can be limited by one's own cultural perspective or background, alongside being culturally sensitive to others.

Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better and more informed ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Some things may be scientifically or technologically possible and yet unethical to develop and deploy.

Six Ethical Lenses

If our ethical decision-making is not solely based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, then on what basis can we decide between right and wrong, good and bad? Many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested a variety of different lenses that help us perceive ethical dimensions. Here are six of them:

The Rights Lens

Some suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights-including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on-is widely debated; some argue that non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying duties-in particular, the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.

( For further elaboration on the rights lens, please see our essay, "Rights.")

The Justice Lens

Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equalsaccording to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment).

( For further elaboration on the justice lens, please see our essay, "Justice and Fairness.")

The Utilitarian Lens

Some ethicists begin by asking, "How will this action impact everyone affected?"-emphasizing the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, the ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected-customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach.

( For further elaboration on the utilitarian lens, please see our essay, "Calculating Consequences.")

The Common Good Lens

According to the common good approach, life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others-especially the vulnerable-are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone-such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates goods for every individual, the common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a community.

( For further elaboration on the common good lens, please see our essay, "The Common Good.")

The Virtue Lens

A very ancient approach to ethics argues that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?"

( For further elaboration on the virtue lens, please see our essay, "Ethics and Virtue.")

The Care Ethics Lens

Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection alongside physical health.

(For further elaboration on the care ethics lens, please see our essay, "Care Ethics.")

Using the Lenses

Each of the lenses introduced above helps us determine what standards of behavior and character traits can be considered right and good. There are still problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific lenses. For example, we may not all agree on the same set of human and civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different lenses may lead to different answers to the question "What is ethical?" Nonetheless, each one gives us important insights in the process of deciding what is ethical in a particular circumstance.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and 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.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to 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.

The following framework for ethical decision-making is intended to serve as a practical tool for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making
Identify the Ethical Issues

1. Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two "goods" or between two "bads"?

2. Is this issue about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

1. What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?

2. What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are the concerns of some of those individuals or groups more important? Why?

3. What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:

Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Lens)

Which option treats people fairly, giving them each what they are due? (The Justice Lens)

Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm for as many stakeholders as possible? (The Utilitarian Lens)

Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? (The Common Good Lens)

Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Lens)

Which option appropriately takes into account the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders? (The Care Ethics Lens)

Choose an Option for Action and Test It

1. After an evaluation using all of these lenses, which option best addresses the situation?

2. If I told someone I respect (or a public audience) which option I have chosen, what would they say?

3. How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?

Implement Your Decision and Reflect on the Outcome

How did my decision turn out, and what have I learned from this specific situation? What (if any) follow-up actions should I take?
This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, Kirk O. Hanson, Irina Raicu, and Jonathan Kwan. It was last revised on November 5, 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Step by step guidance on ethical decision making, including identifying stakeholders, getting the facts, and applying classic ethical approaches.

# data[].attributes.body
Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Deontology is often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical actions follow universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie.  Don’t steal.  Don’t cheat.”

Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Deontology is an ethical theory that says actions are good or bad according to a clear set of rules.

Its name comes from the Greek word , meaning duty. Actions that align with these rules are ethical, while actions that don't aren't. This ethical theory is most closely associated with German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.

His work on personhood is an example of deontology in practice. Kant believed the ability to use reason was what defined a person.

From an ethical perspective, personhood creates a range of rights and obligations because every person has inherent dignity - something that is fundamental to and is held in equal measure by each and every person.

This dignity creates an ethical 'line in the sand' that prevents us from acting in certain ways either toward other people or toward ourselves (because we have dignity as well). Most importantly, Kant argues that we may never treat a person merely as a means to an end (never just as a resource or instrument).

Kant's ethics isn't the only example of deontology. Any system involving a clear set of rules is a form of deontology, which is why some people call it a "rule-based ethic". The Ten Commandments is an example, as is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most deontologists say there are two different kinds of ethical duties, perfect duties and imperfect duties. A perfect duty is inflexible. "Do not kill innocent people" is an example of a perfect duty. You can't obey it a little bit - either you kill innocent people or you don't. There's no middle-ground.

Imperfect duties do allow for some middle ground. "Learn about the world around you" is an imperfect duty because we can all spend different amounts of time on education and each be fulfilling our obligation. How much we commit to imperfect duties is up to us. Our for doing the right thing (which Kant called a maxim) is also important.

We should do our duty for no other reason than because it's the right thing to do.

Obeying the rules for self-interest, because it will lead to better consequences or even because it makes us happy is not, for deontologists, an ethical reason for acting. We should be motivated by our respect for the moral law itself. Deontologists require us to follow universal rules we give to ourselves. These rules must be in accordance with reason - in particular, they must be logically consistent and not give rise to contradictions. It's worth mentioning that deontology is often seen as being strongly opposed to consequentialism . This is because in emphasising the intention to act in accordance with our duties, deontology believes the consequences of our actions have no ethical relevance at all - a similar sentiment to that captured in the phrase "Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall". The appeal of deontology lies in its consistency. By applying ethical duties to all people in all situations the theory is readily applied to most practical situations. By focussing on a person's intentions, it also places ethics entirely within our control - we can't always control or predict the outcomes of our actions, but we are in complete control of our intentions. Others criticise deontology for being inflexible. By ignoring what's at stake in terms of consequences, some say it misses a serious element of ethical decision-making. De-emphasising consequences has other implications too - can it make us guilty of 'crimes of omission'? Kant, for example, argued it would be unethical to lie about the location of our friend, even to a person trying to murder them! For many, this seems intuitively false. One way of resolving this problem is through an idea called threshold deontology, which argues we should always obey the rules unless in an emergency situation, at which point we should revert to a consequentialist approach.

But is this a cop-out? How do we define 'emergency'?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics Explainer: What is Deontology? - The Ethics Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you believe it's noble to do the right thing for the right thing's sake, you've got something in common with Immanuel Kant.

# data[].attributes.body
From the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/ethical-decision-making-poster/

# data[].attributes.body
Outlines 7 Steps for EDM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Seven Steps to Ethical Decision Making
- Step 1: Define the problem (consult PLUS filters)
- Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support
- Step 3: Identify alternatives
- Step 4: Evaluate the alternatives (consult PLUS filters)
- Step 5: Make the decision
- Step 6: Implement the decision
- Step 7: Evaluate the decision (consult PLUS filters)

Introduction
Organizations struggle to develop a simple set of guidelines that makes it easier for individual employees, regardless of position or level, to be confident that his/her decisions meet all of the competing standards for effective and ethical decision-making used by the organization. Such a model must take into account two realities:

Every employee is called upon to make decisions in the normal course of doing his/her job. Organizations cannot function effectively if employees are not empowered to make decisions consistent with their positions and responsibilities.

For the decision maker to be confident in the decision's soundness, every decision should be tested against the organization's policies and values, applicable laws and regulations as well as the individual employee's definition of what is right, fair, good and acceptable.

The decision making process described below has been carefully constructed to be:

Fundamentally sound based on current theories and understandings of both decision-making processes and ethics.

Simple and straightforward enough to be easily integrated into every employee's thought processes.

Descriptive (detailing how ethical decision are made naturally) rather than prescriptive (defining unnatural ways of making choices).

Why do organizations need ethical decision making? See our special edition case study, #RespectAtWork, to find out.

Step 1: Define the problem
The most significant step in any decision-making process is to determine why a decision is called for and identify the desired outcome(s). How you define a problem shapes your understanding of its causes and where you will search for solutions.

First, explore the difference between what you expect and/or desire and the current reality. By defining the problem in terms of outcomes, you can clearly state the problem.

Consider this example: Tenants at an older office building are complaining that their employees are getting angry and frustrated because there is always a long delay getting an elevator to the lobby at rush hour. Many possible solutions exist, and all are predicated on a particular understanding the problem:

Flexible hours - so all the tenants' employees are not at the elevators at the same time.

Faster elevators - so each elevator can carry more people in a given time period.

Bigger elevators - so each elevator can carry more people per trip.

Elevator banks - so each elevator only stops on certain floors, increasing efficiency.

Better elevator controls - so each elevator is used more efficiently.

More elevators - so that overall carrying capacity can be increased.

Improved elevator maintenance - so each elevator is more efficient.

Encourage employees to use the stairs - so fewer people use the elevators.

The real-life decision makers defined the problem as "people complaining about having to wait." Their solution was to make the wait less frustrating by piping music into the elevator lobbies. The complaints stopped. There is no way that the eventual solution could have been reached if, for example, the problem had been defined as "too few elevators."

How you define the problem determines where you go to look for alternatives/solutions- so define the problem carefully.
Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support
Once the problem is defined, it is critical to search out resources that may be of assistance in making the decision. Resources can include people (i.e., a mentor, coworkers, external colleagues, or friends and family) as well professional guidelines and organizational policies and codes. Such resources are critical for determining parameters, generating solutions, clarifying priorities and providing support, both while implementing the solution and dealing with the repercussions of the solution.

Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem
The key to this step is to not limit yourself to obvious alternatives or merely what has worked in the past. Be open to new and better alternatives. Consider as many as solutions as possible - five or more in most cases, three at the barest minimum. This gets away from the trap of seeing "both sides of the situation" and limiting one's alternatives to two opposing choices (i.e., either this or that).

Step 4: Evaluate the identified alternatives
As you evaluate each alternative, identify the likely positive and negative consequence of each. It is unusual to find one alternative that would completely resolve the problem and is significantly better than all others. As you consider positive and negative consequences, you must be careful to differentiate between what you know for a fact and what you believe might be the case. Consulting resources, including written guidelines and standards, can help you ascertain which consequences are of greater (and lesser) import.

You should think through not just what results each alternative could yield, but the likelihood it is that such impact will occur. You will only have all the facts in simple cases. It is reasonable and usually even necessary to supplement the facts you have with realistic assumptions and informed beliefs. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the more the evaluation is fact-based, the more confident you can be that the expected outcome will occur. Knowing the ratio of fact-based evaluation versus non-fact-based evaluation allows you to gauge how confident you can be in the proposed impact of each alternative.

Step 5: Make the decision
When acting alone, this is the natural next step after selecting the best alternative. When you are working in a team environment, this is where a proposal is made to the team, complete with a clear definition of the problem, a clear list of the alternatives that were considered and a clear rationale for the proposed solution.

Step 6: Implement the decision
While this might seem obvious, it is necessary to make the point that deciding on the best alternative is not the same as doing something. The action itself is the first real, tangible step in changing the situation. It is not enough to think about it or talk about it or even decide to do it. A decision only counts when it is implemented. As Lou Gerstner (former CEO of IBM) said, "There are no more prizes for predicting rain. There are only prizes for building arks."

Step 7: Evaluate the decision
Every decision is intended to fix a problem. The final test of any decision is whether or not the problem was fixed. Did it go away? Did it change appreciably? Is it better now, or worse, or the same? What new problems did the solution create?

Ethics Filters

The ethical component of the decision making process takes the form of a set of "filters." Their purpose is to surface the ethics considerations and implications of the decision at hand. When decisions are classified as being "business" decisions (rather than "ethics" issues), values can quickly be left out of consideration and ethical lapses can occur.

At key steps in the process, you should stop and work through these filters, ensuring that the ethics issues imbedded in the decision are given consideration.

We group the considerations into the mnemonic PLUS.

P = Policies
Is it consistent with my organization's policies, procedures and guidelines?

L= Legal
Is it acceptable under the applicable laws and regulations?

U = Universal
Does it conform to the universal principles/values my organization has adopted?

S= Self
Does it satisfy my personal definition of right, good and fair?

The PLUS filters work as an integral part of steps 1, 4 and 7 of the decision-making process. The decision maker applies the four PLUS filters to determine if the ethical component(s) of the decision are being surfaced/addressed/satisfied.

Step 1: Define the problem (use PLUS to surface the ethics issues)

Does the existing situation violate any of the PLUS considerations?

Step 2:Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support

Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem

Step 4: Evaluate the identified alternatives (use PLUS to assess their ethical impact)

Will the alternative I am considering resolve the PLUS violations?

Will the alternative being considered create any new PLUS considerations?

Are the ethical trade-offs acceptable?

Step 5: Make the decision

Step 6: Implement the decision

Step 7: Evaluate the decision (PLUS surface any remaining/new ethics issues)

Does the resultant situation resolve the earlier PLUS considerations?

Are there any new PLUS considerations to be addressed?

The PLUS filters do not guarantee an ethically-sound decision. They merely ensure that the ethics components of the situation will be surfaced so that they might be considered.

How Organizations Can Support Ethical Decision-Making
Organizations empower employees with the knowledge and tools they need to make ethical decisions by

Intentionally and regularly communicating to all employees:

Organizational policies and procedures as they apply to the common workplace ethics issues.

Applicable laws and regulations.

Agreed-upon set of "universal" values (i.e., Empathy, Patience, Integrity, Courage [EPIC]).

Providing a formal mechanism (i.e., a code and a helpline, giving employees access to a definitive interpretation of the policies, laws and universal values when they need additional guidance before making a decision).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model - Ethics & Compliance Toolkit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This ethical decision making model provides a simple guideline to assist decision makers in making confident decisons that are in line with company values.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Chapter 15 Ethics and Professionalism 

# data[].attributes.subject
From Chapter 15 Ethics and Professionalism 

# data[].attributes.body
Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one's duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Virtue ethics is arguably the oldest ethical theory in the world, with origins in Ancient Greece.

It defines good actions as ones that display embody virtuous character traits, like courage, loyalty, or wisdom. A virtue itself is a disposition to act, think and feel in certain ways. Bad actions display the opposite and are informed by vices, such as cowardice, treachery, and ignorance.

For Aristotle, ethics was a key element of human flourishing because it taught people how to differentiate between virtues and vices. By encouraging examination, more people could live a life dedicated to developing virtues.

But it's one thing to know what's right - it's another to actually do it. How did Aristotle advise us to live our virtues?

By acting as though we already have them.

Excellence as habit

Aristotle explained that both virtues and vices are acquired by repetition. If we routinely overindulge a sweet tooth, we develop a vice, - gluttony. If we repeatedly allow others to serve themselves dinner before us, we develop a virtue - selflessness.

Virtue ethics suggests treating our character as a lifelong project, one that has the capacity to truly change who we are. The goal is not to form virtues that mean we act ethically without thinking, but to form virtues that help us see the world clearly and make better judgments as a result.

In a pinch, remember: vices distort, virtues examine.

A quote most of the internet attributes to Aristotle succinctly reads: "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".

Though he didn't actually say this, it's a good indication of what virtue ethics stands for. We can thank American philosopher, Will Durant, for the neat summary.

Aim for in between

There are two practical principles that virtue ethics encourages us to use in ethical dilemmas. The first is called The Golden Mean. When we're trying to work out what the virtuous thing to do in a particular situation is, look to what lies in the middle between two extreme forms of behaviour. The mean will be the virtue, and the extremes at either end, vices.

Here's an example. Imagine your friend is wearing a horrendous outfit and asks you how they look. What are the extreme responses you could take? You could a) burst out laughing or b) tell them they look wonderful when they don't.

These two extremes are vices - the first response is malicious, the second is dishonest. The virtuous response is between these two. In this case, that would be gently but honestly telling your friend you think they'd look nicer in another outfit.

Imagination

The second is to use our imagination. What would we do if we were already a virtuous person? By imagining the kind of person we'd like to be and how we would want to respond we can start to close the gap between our aspirational identity and who we are at the moment.

Virtue ethics can remind us of the importance of role models. If you want someone to learn ethics, show them an ethical person.

Some argue virtue ethics is overly vague in guiding actions. They say its principles aren't specific enough to help us overcome difficult ethical conundrums. "Be virtuous" isn't very practical. Others have expressed concern that virtues or vices aren't agreed on by everybody. Stoicism or sexual openness can be a virtue to some, a vice to others.

Finally, some people think virtue ethics breeds 'moral narcissism', where we are so obsessed with our own ethical character that we value it above anyone or anything else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It defines good actions as ones that display embody virtuous character traits, like courage, loyalty, or wisdom. A virtue itself is a disposition to act, think and feel in certain ways. Bad actions display the opposite and are informed by vices, such as cowardice, treachery, and ignorance.

# data[].attributes.body
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it's difficult to know with certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war.

# data[].attributes.body
Consequentialism is a theory that says whether something is good or bad depends on its outcomes. An action that brings about more benefit than harm is good, while an action that causes more harm than benefit is not. The most famous version of this theory is utilitarianism as discussed in your Bowen chapter reading.

According to SevenPillarsInstitute.com, utilitarianism and consequentialism share many of the same tenets.  One difference, however, is consequentialism does not specify a desired outcome, while utilitarianism specifies good as the desired outcome

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethics Explainer: What is Consequentialism? - The Ethics Centre

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ever heard of the phrase “the ends justify the means”? If you’d lie to a friend to protect their feelings, you might be interested in consequentialism.