Why This Matters
When you face an ethics question on the exam, you're not just being asked to identify which model applies—you're being tested on your ability to analyze how different frameworks lead to different conclusions about the same dilemma. Understanding these models means recognizing that a utilitarian might approve an action a deontologist would condemn, and being able to explain why based on each framework's core logic. These models appear constantly in case studies, stakeholder analysis questions, and scenarios where you must justify a recommendation.
The real skill here is matching the right framework to the right situation and understanding the trade-offs each approach involves. Some models prioritize outcomes, others focus on duties and rules, and still others emphasize character or relationships. Don't just memorize definitions—know what question each model is really asking, what it values most, and where its blind spots lie. That's what separates a passing answer from an excellent one.
Outcome-Focused Models
These frameworks evaluate ethics by examining results. The morality of an action depends on what it produces—benefits, harms, or overall welfare. When applying these models, you're essentially asking: "What happens next, and for whom?"
Utilitarian Approach
- Maximizes aggregate welfare—often summarized as "the greatest good for the greatest number," this framework requires calculating net benefits across all affected parties
- Consequentialist logic means the ends can justify the means; an action causing some harm may still be ethical if it produces greater overall benefit
- Common exam application: cost-benefit analyses, layoff decisions, environmental trade-offs—any scenario requiring you to weigh competing outcomes
Ethical Egoism
- Prioritizes self-interest as the primary ethical criterion—argues that individuals acting in their own interest ultimately benefits society
- Rational self-interest differs from selfishness; proponents argue it leads to efficient markets and clear accountability
- Exam relevance: often appears as a foil to other models; you may be asked to critique its limitations in stakeholder contexts
Compare: Utilitarianism vs. Ethical Egoism—both focus on outcomes, but utilitarianism aggregates welfare across all parties while egoism centers on the decision-maker's interests. If an FRQ asks you to contrast self-interest with collective welfare, this distinction is your anchor.
Rule-Based and Duty-Focused Models
These frameworks ask whether an action is inherently right or wrong, regardless of consequences. The focus shifts from "what results?" to "what principles must I uphold?"
Duty-Based Ethics (Deontology)
- Adherence to moral rules regardless of outcomes—certain actions (lying, breaking promises) are wrong even if they produce good results
- Kant's categorical imperative is the classic formulation: act only according to principles you could will to be universal laws
- Accountability emphasis makes this framework popular in compliance contexts, professional codes of conduct, and fiduciary duties
Rights-Based Approach
- Inherent individual rights must be respected regardless of utilitarian calculations—privacy, autonomy, due process
- Negative rights (freedom from interference) and positive rights (entitlements to certain goods) create different obligations
- Exam tip: employee privacy cases, whistleblower protections, and discrimination scenarios often call for rights-based analysis
Social Contract Theory
- Ethical norms arise from implicit agreements among members of society—we consent to rules that enable mutual benefit and social order
- Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment asks what rules you'd choose if you didn't know your position in society
- Business application: justifies regulations, labor standards, and corporate responsibilities as part of the "deal" companies accept to operate in society
Compare: Deontology vs. Rights-Based Approach—both reject pure consequentialism, but deontology emphasizes duties (what you must do) while rights-based ethics emphasizes protections (what others cannot do to you). FRQs may ask you to distinguish these when analyzing employee treatment scenarios.
Stakeholder and Community-Oriented Models
These frameworks expand the ethical lens beyond individual actions to consider relationships, community welfare, and the interests of all affected parties.
Stakeholder Theory
- All affected parties deserve consideration—employees, customers, suppliers, communities, shareholders, not just owners
- Balancing competing interests is the core challenge; no single stakeholder group automatically takes priority
- Corporate governance focus makes this essential for questions about board responsibilities, CSR initiatives, and long-term value creation
Common Good Approach
- Community welfare over individual optimization—asks what actions contribute to shared social conditions that benefit everyone
- Interconnectedness recognition means individual flourishing depends on healthy institutions, infrastructure, and social trust
- Exam application: environmental sustainability, public health decisions, community investment questions
Fairness or Justice Approach
- Equitable distribution of benefits and burdens—similar cases should be treated similarly, and inequalities require justification
- Procedural fairness (fair processes) matters as much as distributive fairness (fair outcomes)
- Rawls' difference principle: inequalities are acceptable only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society
Compare: Stakeholder Theory vs. Common Good Approach—both consider collective welfare, but stakeholder theory focuses on identifiable groups with specific interests while common good emphasizes shared conditions that benefit society broadly. Use stakeholder theory for corporate decisions, common good for policy-level questions.
Character and Relationship-Based Models
These frameworks shift attention from actions or outcomes to the kind of person making decisions and the quality of relationships involved.
Virtue Approach
- Moral character matters more than rules or calculations—asks "what would a person of integrity do?"
- Cultivating virtues like honesty, courage, fairness, and prudence shapes consistent ethical behavior over time
- Aristotelian roots emphasize that virtues are developed through practice and habit, not just intellectual understanding
Care-Based Ethics
- Relationships and empathy are central to ethical reasoning—prioritizes responsiveness to others' needs, especially vulnerable individuals
- Contextual judgment over abstract principles; what's ethical depends on the specific relationships and circumstances involved
- Feminist ethics origin challenges traditional models' emphasis on impartiality and universal rules
Compare: Virtue Approach vs. Care-Based Ethics—both focus on the moral agent rather than just actions, but virtue ethics emphasizes individual character development while care ethics emphasizes relational responsiveness. Care ethics is particularly relevant for questions involving power imbalances or dependent relationships.
Practical Decision-Making Frameworks
These models provide step-by-step processes for working through ethical dilemmas. They're less about philosophical foundations and more about structured analysis.
The Potter Box Model
- Four-step framework: Definition (facts), Values (what matters), Principles (which ethical theory applies), Loyalties (to whom you're obligated)
- Systematic analysis forces you to separate facts from values and identify competing obligations before deciding
- Media ethics origin but widely applicable to business scenarios requiring stakeholder analysis
PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model
- Four-filter test: Policies (organizational rules), Legal (laws and regulations), Universal (broadly accepted principles), Self (personal values)
- Comprehensive screening ensures decisions pass multiple ethical checkpoints before implementation
- Corporate compliance focus makes this practical for organizational decision-making contexts
Blanchard and Peale's Three Questions
- Simple practical test: Is it legal? Is it balanced? How does it make me feel?
- Gut-check component ("how does it make me feel?") acknowledges that ethical intuition matters alongside analysis
- Quick application makes this useful for time-pressured decisions or initial screening of options
The Seven-Step Guide to Ethical Decision-Making
- Comprehensive process: Identify problem → Gather information → Evaluate alternatives → Decide → Implement → Monitor → Reflect
- Continuous improvement built into the model through monitoring and reflection stages
- Process accountability creates documentation and justification for decisions—valuable in organizational contexts
Compare: Potter Box vs. PLUS Model—both provide structured frameworks, but Potter Box emphasizes philosophical grounding (explicitly choosing principles and loyalties) while PLUS emphasizes compliance screening (checking against policies and laws). Choose Potter Box for complex stakeholder dilemmas, PLUS for corporate policy questions.
Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism
- Relativism holds that ethical standards vary by culture, context, or individual—no universal moral truths exist
- Absolutism asserts universal principles that apply regardless of cultural context or personal belief
- Global business implications: this debate directly affects how companies navigate cross-cultural ethical conflicts and whether "when in Rome" is ever acceptable
Quick Reference Table
|
| Outcome-focused reasoning | Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism |
| Rule/duty-based reasoning | Deontology, Rights-Based Approach |
| Community/stakeholder focus | Stakeholder Theory, Common Good, Fairness/Justice |
| Character/relationship focus | Virtue Approach, Care-Based Ethics |
| Structured decision processes | Potter Box, PLUS Model, Seven-Step Guide |
| Quick practical tests | Blanchard and Peale's Three Questions |
| Social agreement basis | Social Contract Theory |
| Meta-ethical debate | Moral Relativism vs. Absolutism |
Self-Check Questions
-
A company must decide whether to close a profitable factory that pollutes a local water supply. Which two models would most likely reach opposite conclusions, and why?
-
Both deontology and rights-based ethics reject pure consequentialism. What is the key distinction between what each framework emphasizes?
-
You're advising a board facing pressure from shareholders to cut costs by reducing employee benefits. Which framework would prioritize shareholder interests, and which would require balancing all affected parties? Explain the difference.
-
Compare and contrast the Potter Box and PLUS models. In what type of ethical dilemma would you choose one over the other?
-
FRQ-style prompt: A multinational corporation discovers its overseas supplier uses child labor, which is legal in that country but violates company policy. Using two different ethical frameworks, analyze whether the company should continue the relationship. How does the moral relativism vs. absolutism debate inform your analysis?