Hard cases
Put consequences, duty and character to work together on real dilemmas: see where they agree, find the real sticking point when they don't, and look for a better third option.
| Lens | It asks | Its blind spot |
|---|---|---|
| Consequences (Bentham, Mill) | Which option does the most good for everyone affected? | Can excuse using a person |
| Duty (Kant) | Could everyone act on my rule? Am I using anyone? | Can be rigid when duties clash |
| Character (Aristotle) | What would a wise, honest, kind person do? | Doesn't hand you a formula |
HOW TO READ THEM
Agreement and disagreement both tell you something
When all three lenses point the same way, you can act with confidence. When they split, you've found the real hard part of the problem, and that's where to spend your thinking. Remember Aristotle from lesson 6: the skill of weighing all this in a particular situation is practical wisdom. No lens replaces it; the lenses feed it.
Cheating on an exam fails all three: it harms honest students, can't be universalised, and isn't what an honest person does. Easy. Whether to tell a sick relative a hard truth may split them. That's the case worth slowing down for.
Check yourself
Which lens is each question coming from?
- Which option leaves the fewest people worse off?
- Could I want everyone to do this?
- What would an honest but kind friend do here?
- Would she agree to this if she knew what I'm doing?
- Which choice turns me into the person I want to be?
- How much harm will this prevent over the next year?
Show the answer
Consequences: Which option leaves the fewest people worse off?, How much harm will this prevent over the next year?
Duty: Could I want everyone to do this?, Would she agree to this if she knew what I'm doing?
Character: What would an honest but kind friend do here?, Which choice turns me into the person I want to be?
Working through a hard case
- Name the real options
Write them down. Most dilemmas arrive as 'A or B'. Ask whether there's a C.
- Run all three lenses
Who is helped or harmed? Could everyone act this way, and am I using anyone? What would a good person do?
- Find where they split
That's the true conflict. Often it's between two good things, like honesty and kindness.
- Decide and be able to explain it
Pick the option that survives the most lenses. If you couldn't explain your reasons to the person affected, look again.
CASE ONE
The friend's café
Mina is about to put all her savings into a café. Her friend Nasrin has read the plan and thinks the rent alone will sink it. Mina asks, 'Honestly, what do you think?' Consequences: a comfortable 'looks great' could cost Mina her savings. Duty: lying to her fails both of Kant's tests. Character: Aristotle's mean sits between blunt cruelty and flattery: tactful honesty.
All three agree. The hard part isn't whether to be honest, but how: specific, kind, about the plan and not about Mina, and leaving the decision with her.
Check yourself
Which reply from Nasrin passes all three lenses best?
- 'It's brilliant, go for it!', since Mina is so excited and it's her life to live
- 'This will fail and you'll lose everything', said flatly so the message is really clear
- Saying nothing and changing the subject, to avoid taking sides on her plan
- 'I love the idea, but I'm worried about the rent. Can we look at the numbers?'
Show the answer
'I love the idea, but I'm worried about the rent. Can we look at the numbers?'
Yes. It's honest (duty), gives Mina what she needs to protect her savings (consequences), and is kind and specific, the mean Aristotle praised (character).
CASE TWO
The friend who pads expenses
Behnam discovers that Farid, his close friend at work, has been adding small made-up amounts to his expense claims. Consequences: reporting could cost Farid his job; staying silent lets it grow and puts the team's trust at risk. Duty: a rule of covering for theft can't be universalised, and it deceives the employer. Character: loyalty and honesty are both virtues, and here they pull apart.
The lenses give Behnam a direction, not a script. Many people would land on a third option: talk to Farid first, privately, and ask him to stop and pay it back, making clear that if he doesn't, Behnam can't keep quiet.
Check yourself
Behnam's colleague says: 'Honesty is a virtue, so Aristotle would tell Behnam to report Farid straight away, in any way, to anyone. How and when don't matter.'
Show the answer
False
False. For Aristotle, a virtue means acting at the right time, in the right way, towards the right people. Honesty that ignores loyalty, timing and manner can slide into harshness. That's why practical wisdom, not a rule, does the final weighing.
CASE THREE
The grandmother's question
Sara's grandmother has dementia. Every afternoon she asks where her husband is. He died two years ago, and each time she's told, she grieves as if for the first time. Consequences say: stop repeating news that only brings fresh pain. Duty says: don't invent a story that he's at the shops. Character asks for both compassion and honesty.
Here the 'A or B' of truth versus lie hides a C. Many carers learn to answer the feeling behind the question: 'You're thinking about him. Tell me about him.' No new grief, no invented story.
Check yourself
Sara's brother Amir argues the family must choose between two options. What's the best reply?
- He's right: either tell her the truth each time or tell a kind lie, and consequences say lie
- He's right: Kant settles it, so they must repeat the news every single time she asks
- First look for an option neither lens objects to, like her memories of him
- It can't be settled either way, so they should just pick whichever takes least effort
Show the answer
First look for an option neither lens objects to, like her memories of him
Yes. When the lenses split, the first move is to check whether the dilemma is real. Here a third option respects her feelings without deceiving her.
What to carry out of this lesson
- Run all three lenses; agreement means act, disagreement shows you the real problem.
- Many dilemmas are false either/ors, the false dilemma from lesson 3. Look for option C before choosing.
- Hard cases are often good against good: honesty against kindness, loyalty against fairness.
- Argue with the lens you like least, so ethics doesn't become a lawyer for what you wanted anyway.
Check yourself
- Parisa promised to come to her friend's small exhibition. A better-paid gig comes up for the same evening, and she cancels on her friend.
- Parisa promised to meet a friend for coffee. An hour before, her father is taken to hospital, and she cancels.
Most people, and all three lenses, accept the second cancellation but not the first. Why?
- Family always comes first, whatever the promise was and whoever it was made to
- An emergency the friend would excuse, versus breaking her word for money
- Promises only really matter when others are watching, as at a public exhibition
- The first cancellation is fine too, because in the end a promise is just words
Show the answer
An emergency the friend would excuse, versus breaking her word for money
Yes. Consequences weigh a hospital against a coffee; Kant asks whether the friend could agree, and she would; a good friend would say 'go!'. None of that holds for a better-paid gig.
Lesson recap
- Consequences, duty and character each catch what the others miss; use all three.
- When they agree, act. When they split, you've found the real conflict.
- Question the 'A or B': a third option often respects more of what matters.
- Practical wisdom does the final weighing, and it gets better with honest practice.