The assumptions underlying these methods is that there can never be a correct answer. It is far more appropriate and reasonable to liken the ethicist to a psychologist, rather than a philosopher. An ethicist defines and makes sense of humans—that single irrational and incalculable species—and the choices that organize them.

Ironically, what is considered factual in the study of ethics are the fallacies that limit and hinder argument. To ethicists, there are a variety of fallacies (false authority, guilt by association, ad hominem, etc.). These fallacies, if noted in an ethical observation, can determine if an ethical theory is valid or if it suffers from a gaping flaw that would obstruct it from accurately and effectively representing and reflecting humans and their decision-making.

Ethics do not frequently rely on models; however, to gauge how an ethical theory applies to a larger population, ethicists tend to present individuals with situations or moral dilemmas to gauge their responses and opinions. Though this typically entails relying on a smaller sample size, these models and statistics provide insight into the applicability and validity of certain ethical theories.

Typically, there are ethical constraints that limit what can be explored and evaluated by ethicists. For example, ethicists are dissuaded from attempting to justify and present ethical notions that would justify grotesque acts of humanity; while this certainly serves to ensure that such acts do not recur because of a presence of justification, it limits our knowledge and understanding of why those decisions were made and how we can better build a society that would impede the emergence of such factors and conditions that brought by those acts in the first place.