Somewhere along the line, I think we have actually forgotten what ethics is.

This concerns me most of all in discussions about “AI ethics”, of course, but this is only part of a larger gap spanning multiple contexts of my life. For example:

• In academia, we have a model of research ethics that is essentially a procedural framework for reviewing the logistics and documentation for a research project.
• In teaching students about technology, we ask them to outline “ethical considerations” as though these are simply lists of technology’s ill effects to be mindful of.
• In business, we establish lists of “values” that are the ethical principles our organisation pledges to uphold (integrity, bravery, sustainability, etc.).

But none of these things is what ethics is. Sure, they hint here and there of the original flavour, but it’s difficult, maybe impossible to discern what specifically it once was.

So let’s start again.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy which deals with what is good and right, and what decisions we should make to align with what is good and right.

Three things to remember about ethics

• Ethics guides decision-making. What you determine is good and right informs what you choose to do and be.

• Ethics is the core of integrity — the idea that your stated values are aligned with your actual choices.

• Ethics is fundamentally about the freedom to choose to act in alignment with your values, even when those actions are not in alignment with your instincts.

Four systems of ethics

Here, I want to introduce you to four ways of thinking about ethics. There are more, of course. Ethics is an absolutely massive branch of axiology (the philosophy of value). But these ones are the systems of ethical thinking that are most relevant to the way you and I live life.

Ethics of duty

This system of ethics is focused on defining and upholding pre-determined rules, norms and principles which govern what is right and good. When what is right is based on rules, that means each person has a duty to uphold those rules. It’s often called deontological ethics.

An ethics of duty is in play when we follow law and regulation; when we abide by religious commandments; when we do what is expected of us in line with cultural norms; or when we follow an employee code of conduct. Our decisions should be based on these principles, rather than on weighing up the particulars.

---

Ethics of consequences

In this system of ethics, whether something is right and good is determined based on what consequences arise from it. This is often called teleological or consequentialist ethics.

The focus is not on the means of action (say, whether a statement would be a lie) but on the ends (say, whether the lie would cause or prevent harm). So our decisions should be based on their potential outcomes. If a particular decision is likely to cause more harm than good, under this system, it would be a wrong decision to make.

---

Virtue ethics

In virtue ethics, rather than focusing on obligations or consequences, it is the character of the person making the decision that is central. Are they honest? Are they compassionate? Are they courageous?

It’s important to understand that in virtue ethics, virtues aren’t just labels for the person’s actions, but for who the person is. They are not honest because they know they should be honest, but because they hold honesty to be a personal value. This is the core of the idea of integrity: speaking and acting in line with our values and beliefs.

---

Ethics of care

If we use an ethics of care, we base our decisions on what is needed in the moment by those implicated in the decision-making relationship. Ethical choices are grounded in care, rather than impartial logic.

This view of ethics is unusual because it is subjective — what people want and feel are not confounding variables, but are important information that should inform ethical choices. Therefore, in an ethics of care, it would be ethically right to save your own child in preference to somebody else’s.

---

Each of these ways of thinking has been developed and debated over hundreds or thousands of years. They each have their nuances and their criticisms, and in reality we draw from not one but all of these systems in our ethical decision-making today.

When we are faced with a choice about what to do, we have the opportunity to choose ethically or cast ethics aside. To choose ethically, we consider questions like:

• What choices do I have? Do I have the freedom to choose at all?
• What are the rules, principles or norms about this kind of decision?
• What do I intend to happen? What might happen? Could this cause harm?
• What choice would best align with my own personal values?
• Who is implicated and who is impacted? What do I know about them, their desires, feelings and needs?

What I most want to make clear, though, is this:

It’s only ethics if it involves making a choice.

If the decisions have already been made and you don’t appeal them, you cannot be acting ethically — you are simply accepting the ethics of whoever made those decisions for you. If the considerations are laid out, but you do not use them to make your decision, you are not acting ethically.

This is why I fight so hard for educators’ rights to make decisions about what and how they teach. This is why I think it’s essential to be aware not only of the impacts of choices you make, but also those of the people whose choices you endorse through buying and using their products — like this map of ethics violations along the GenAI value chain.

So remember: if you choose not to act, that is also a choice. Was it made ethically? That’s a question for you to answer.

“Whenever we make a choice, it was possible for us to have made a different one.”

The Ethics Centre