Case workshop From ethical lenses to a defensible decision

How to use this workshop

Work through each stage before reading its feedback. Keep your first response so you can see what changed. These stages teach a method; they are not extra scored questions or an official examination format. The separate module review later will test transfer to a new case.

You will practise four skills: separating facts from assumptions, applying two genuinely different ethical arguments, proposing an authorised and workable response, and revising it when evidence changes. You do not need to memorise every thinker to begin. If you can distinguish a duty-based reason from a consequence-based reason, use that distinction precisely; if not, revisit the earlier duty and welfare lessons first.

The case: protect a collection before information is lost

A fictional municipal museum has one approved conservation slot for one complete batch today; the next slot is seven days away. A qualified conservator verifies that Batch A contains popular exhibition posters whose originals will remain stable for that week and whose digital copies can serve current readers. Batch B contains unique adult oral-history recordings at risk of irreversible information loss before the next slot; no usable copy exists. Both batches are eligible public collections of documented value. The written allocation rule prioritises verified irreversible-loss risk, then time-sensitive public use; exact ties use a recorded draw. The curator may choose the batch under this rule, obtain the conservator's report, override an advisory popularity-based scheduling score with recorded reasons, provide already approved copies, and refer objections to the museum review officer, who must answer within two working days. The curator cannot add funding, split the conservation slot or alter access/consent terms. An influential association demands A for publicity. No individual safety emergency is asserted. All conservation findings are stipulated; learners should not invent technical methods. The precise timing and amount of information loss are uncertain, although the comparative risk assessment is verified.

Stage 1: build a factual map

Before proposing a solution, write three short lists: what is established, what you may do, and what remains unknown. Then compare with the feedback.

Feedback: facts are not assumptions

The established comparison is about risk and available copies. A is stable for the week and has usable approved digital copies; B faces irreversible information loss before the next slot and has no usable copy. Both are eligible collections of documented value. There is only one whole-batch slot today. Popularity is a fact about A, not proof that A has the greater preservation need.

The curator may apply the allocation rule, obtain the expert report, depart from the advisory score with recorded reasons, provide already approved copies and refer objections. The curator may not invent funds, divide the slot or change access and consent conditions. An answer that quietly creates one of those powers is not a better ethical solution; it answers a different case.

The exact time and amount of information loss remain uncertain. Do not manufacture a percentage or claim total destruction is certain. The verified comparative risk is nevertheless relevant evidence; uncertainty about the precise amount does not make all options equally supported.

Stage 2: give two different reasons

Write two short arguments. Each should connect a principle to a fact and explain a decision implication. Avoid giving two names followed by the same generic sentence.

Feedback: duty-based reasoning

A duty-based argument can ask what it means to accept entrusted public responsibility while claiming to allocate impartially. Quietly selecting the influential association’s preferred batch for publicity, while presenting the choice as a rule-governed preservation decision, would undermine that public justification. The curator should act on a reason that can be openly defended as consistent with the entrusted role.

This is an application informed by the earlier duty-based lesson, not a quotation from Kant about museums. It is also more than “follow every rule because it is a rule.” A rule still needs ethical scrutiny. Here the stated rule connects a scarce preservation resource to relevant verified risk and provides a review route; the facts do not establish a reason to disregard it for publicity.

Feedback: impartial consequences

A consequence-based argument can compare what present and future users lose under each option. Deferring B may destroy information with no usable copy, while deferring A leaves stable originals and current digital access. This comparison counts the interests affected, not merely the loudness or size of the lobbying group.

A Mill-informed application should not reduce welfare to a popularity total. Nor should it assume that oral history is always more valuable than posters. The conclusion depends on the stated risk, copies and service alternatives, not a fixed ranking of cultural genres. The two arguments can support the same action while explaining different reasons for it.

Other accurate lenses may receive credit. For example, practical wisdom can examine how a steward applies the relevant standard to these circumstances. It must still add a distinct reason; calling the same outcome “virtuous, dutiful and useful” without explaining the differences is only relabelling.

Stage 3: compare the real options

Consider A now, B now, dividing the slot, and using a draw. Identify which options are supported or excluded and why.

Feedback: a comparison that respects the facts

A now: The publicity benefit does not overcome the verified risk to B under the stated allocation rule. A’s stable originals and available copies make delay less destructive on these facts. Do not pretend that A has no value; explain why it can wait here.

B now: This addresses the verified irreversible-loss risk and fits the rule. A can receive already approved digital access while its conservation is deferred. This is the supported choice in the base case.

Divide the slot or buy another: Both exceed the case’s constraints. The curator cannot make resources appear by declaring that everyone deserves help.

A recorded draw: The rule permits this for an exact tie, which the base facts do not establish. A fair tie-breaker is not a substitute for comparing unequal relevant reasons. It becomes appropriate in the second variant below.

The advisory scheduling score measures popularity and omits the decisive risk dimension. Use the permitted, recorded departure rather than either obeying it uncritically or deleting the system without authority. No fact identifies this tool as machine-learned AI; the relevant issue is what its measure includes and leaves out, not a technological label.

Stage 4: turn the reason into a service plan

Write a five-sentence decision that a colleague could act on. Include who acts, the reason, a permitted service for A, the record and review route, and a limit. Compare it with this worked response.

Worked response

Obtain and retain the conservator’s report, then allocate today’s full slot to B under the verified irreversible-loss criterion. Record why the popularity score does not capture that criterion and use the authorised override. Tell A’s users about the already approved digital copies and the next conservation slot, without changing consent or access terms. Explain the reasons to the association and refer objections to the named museum review officer, whose response is due within two working days under this fictional procedure. A’s delayed conservation still has a cost; the plan reduces it but does not justify claiming that everyone receives everything immediately.

Notice that each safeguard addresses a mechanism. The expert report makes the risk basis reviewable. Approved copies preserve some current service. A named review route lets objections reach someone responsible. “Be transparent, compassionate and accountable” would be too vague unless these words were connected to actions like these.

Stage 5: change a material fact

Variant 1: the conservation evidence reverses

A new verified survey establishes that B has a usable preservation copy and its originals are stable for the week, while A has no usable copy and faces irreversible information loss before the next slot. The allocation rule and powers are unchanged.

Reasoned response: Prioritise A under the same rule. Correct the evidence record and explain that the relevant preservation risk, not the association’s pressure, changed the result. B’s usable copy and stability now support its delay. Consistency means using the same relevant principle with the new facts; it does not mean preserving the same batch name in every answer. The association benefiting from a justified decision does not make that decision automatically partisan.

Variant 2: a verified exact tie

Both batches are now verified equal in irreversible-loss risk and time-sensitive public use. The advisory tool correctly identifies the tie and offers a transparent recorded draw authorised by the policy. No evidence of tool error or special entitlement is present.

Reasoned response: Use the transparent recorded draw authorised for this equality of reasons. Explain the tie, record the process and result, and use whatever mitigation the existing powers actually permit for the delayed batch. Do not invent a hidden entitlement or favour the group you personally prefer. A correctly functioning tool can assist the stated process; rejecting it automatically would add no ethical value. The fair selection procedure manages the scarce choice but cannot guarantee that no information is lost from the unchosen batch.

Stage 6: write and assess an examination-sized answer

Mains writing practice · 10 marks · maximum 150 words

In the conservation case, recommend a batch and service plan, reject one alternative with reasons, apply two distinct ethical lenses and explain how the first changed-fact variant alters the decision.

Write your own answer before reading the model. It must address the first changed-fact variant as well as the original case.

Illustrative answer

Choose B under the irreversible-loss rule: its unique recordings lack a usable copy and may be lost before the next slot. A remains stable and can serve readers through approved digital copies. Duty-based reasoning rejects concealed publicity preference while claiming impartial stewardship; consequence-based reasoning considers lasting losses to present and future users, not popularity alone. Obtain the conservator’s report, record the permitted score override, preserve access and consent terms and explain A’s deferred slot and the two-working-day review route. Do not split the indivisible slot or invent unauthorised funds. A’s delay still has a cost. If verified evidence reverses the risk and copy position, prioritise A for those changed reasons, update the record and explain the consistent rule. Neither collection is inherently superior because of its popularity.

Self-assessment rubric

• Facts and authority: 2 marks
• Two distinct, justified ethical arguments: 3 marks
• Feasible decision and rejected alternative: 2 marks
• Changed evidence and follow-through: 2 marks
• Clarity: 1 mark

For the three argument marks, look for a reason about the entrusted role or justified principle and a genuinely different reason about consequences, or another accurately distinguished pair. Two thinker names with no case-specific reasoning earn no comparison credit. The answer need not match the model’s wording, but it must not erase the case’s constraints.

Repair a weak answer

Weak answer: “Kant says duty and Mill says happiness. Both collections deserve help, so divide the money equally, choose A for its many visitors and promise B that nothing will be lost.”

There is no divisible funding decision in the case. The answer names thinkers without applying an argument, ignores the irreversible-loss rule and invents a guarantee. A repair should identify B’s risk and missing copy, explain the public-duty and impartial-loss reasons, use the actual slot and override powers, retain service to A through approved copies, and state what changes when the risk evidence reverses. It should acknowledge remaining cost instead of concealing it behind reassurance.

Four independent checks

Check 1: fact, power and uncertainty

List one fact, one stated power and one genuine uncertainty before proposing a conservation action.

Answer: A verified fact is that B has no usable copy and faces irreversible information loss before the next slot. A stated power is the curator’s ability to depart from the advisory score with recorded reasons under the allocation rule. A genuine uncertainty is the exact amount or timing of loss. Do not convert that uncertainty into an invented probability or confuse an uncertain magnitude with absence of risk evidence.

Check 2: a real comparison of lenses

What does each chosen ethical lens reveal that the other does not emphasise?

Answer: Duty-based reasoning examines whether the decision honours entrusted public responsibility and can be honestly defended under a justifiable principle. Impartial consequence-based reasoning examines the losses and service effects for present and future users. Both can favour B here, but they do so through different arguments. Neither lens is made complete by attaching a philosopher’s name to the preferred result.

Check 3: a safeguard with an effect

Which proposed safeguard changes a conservation or service risk rather than merely sounding ethical?

Answer: Providing A’s already approved digital copies maintains some reader service while its originals wait; the copies therefore address a specific delay cost. Recording the conservator’s evidence and the override enables review of the allocation. A named review officer provides a route for an objection. State one such causal connection rather than list every good-sounding value.

Check 4: a changed answer and a stable reason

Which conclusion changes when the conservation evidence reverses and which principle remains?

Answer: Priority changes from B to A when verified irreversible-loss and usable-copy facts reverse. The stable reason is responsible, impartial application of the risk-based allocation rule. The change is not a concession to pressure and not proof that the original decision was irrational on its earlier evidence. Record the update so others can see why a consistent principle produced a different result.

Sources and limits

• Retrieve the earlier lessons on duty-based reasoning, impartial consequences, instrumental/value rationality and accountability. These are teaching references, not a new legal authority. The arguments above are original applications to this fictional case, not claims that any philosopher discussed it.
• Max Weber, original section 2 on action orientations, with the verified Henderson/Parsons 1947 translation, printed pages 115–118: a reminder that a measure’s goal and the reasons for choosing it matter; it does not supply a museum allocation law.
• Second ARC, Ethics in Governance, January 2007, sections 5.1.7–5.1.9, 5.1.12(a–b) and 6.11.2, printed pages 128–129 and 150: assigned responsibility, response and review as recommendations. The case separately states all powers and time periods.
• RPSC Mains syllabus, 9 January 2026, page 5, fictional case-study scope. Conservation findings are stipulated teaching facts, not technical advice. Sources checked 30 September 2026.

Quick reference

• First map established facts, powers and real unknowns
• Apply two different arguments, not two labels for one conclusion
• Compare only feasible options; do not invent money, staff or authority
• Use a score for what it measures, not as a substitute for the governing criterion
• Give a service plan, a reasoned rejected alternative and a review route
• Change the selected option when relevant evidence changes
• Use the stated tie procedure only when its conditions hold
• A fair decision can still leave a cost; communicate and mitigate honestly