Ethical decision-making module review

Answer all five questions. Questions 1–4 carry 5 marks each, with a maximum of 50 words per answer. Question 5 carries 10 marks, with a maximum of 150 words. Suggested practice: 35 minutes, followed by self-assessment. This is an original module review, not an official RPSC paper or the full 65-mark indicative ethics-unit practice. The official distribution is indicative and may vary. Answer either language version; attempting both does not double the marks. Read all questions before opening the answer guide.

Questions

Question 1 · 5 marks

All adult applicants face the same eligibility rule, but instructions use unexplained technical language. Staff may explain them plainly. Distinguish fair access from waived eligibility and add one accountability step.

Question 2 · 5 marks

Two authorised notice-printing methods are equally readable and accurate; one uses half the paper. A colleague calls saving paper incompatible with public-service values. Explain instrumental and value rationality and assess this claim.

Question 3 · 5 marks

Explain why a justified administrative priority may leave an unmet moral claim. Distinguish this from temptation for private gain and state a responsible follow-through step.

Question 4 · 5 marks

An advisory AI matcher links two adults because their names match, but verified identifiers differ. The reviewer may correct the match and route the request for ordinary assessment. Explain why conscience and oversight require evidence-based correction.

Question 5 · 10 marks

Fictional case: A fictional adult public library lends one portable audio recorder per session. The published rule rotates access among eligible groups that received no session in the current round, then uses a recorded draw for an exact tie. A group changing its name remains the same group when its organiser and membership are unchanged. Group A used its turn but reapplies under a new name; verified records establish an unchanged organiser and membership. Eligible Group B has received no turn. A spreadsheet treats the new label as a new group and lists A first. The librarian may correct duplicate entries, apply the published rotation, record reasons, notify both groups and put A in the next round; the librarian cannot alter eligibility or punish a group by permanent exclusion. An independent review librarian can review an objection within one working day. A trustee urges treating the spreadsheet as conclusive. The spreadsheet is rule-based, not identified as AI; all participants are adults.

Changed fact to address in your answer: Verification instead establishes that A is a genuinely separate eligible group with different organisers and members, and neither A nor B has had a turn this round. The published rule therefore gives them an exact tie.

Task: Using the unseen library case, give a decision, two distinct ethical reasons, a rejected alternative and a reviewable action plan. Explain how the changed identity evidence alters the result.

Answer guide and self-assessment

Question 1

Plain explanations remove a barrier to understanding the same eligibility rule; they do not excuse missing conditions. Provide equivalent help without favour or humiliation. Record recurring confusion, request a review of the instructions and communicate any authorised correction. The competent decision-maker still assesses eligibility using the required evidence.

• Fair access versus eligibility waiver — 2 marks
• Humane practical help — 1 mark
• Response or review step — 1 mark
• Clarity — 1 mark

Give credit for a specific feasible response-and-review step. Repeating “treat everyone equally” does not explain the communication barrier. Do not promise approval of every application.

Question 2

Instrumental reasoning compares ends, means and effects; value-rational action treats conduct as intrinsically worthwhile independently of success. Neither inherently opposes responsible resource use. With equal readability and accuracy, the authorised paper-saving method can serve public-service values. The colleague confuses commitment with waste; check any relevant additional costs before deciding.

• Accurate two-orientation distinction — 2 marks
• Evidence-based ethical assessment — 2 marks
• Clarity — 1 mark

Assess the claim, not the colleague’s whole character. The stated equality supports paper saving; it does not license invented claims about the entire environmental lifecycle. Values and effective means need not conflict.

Question 3

A justified priority can override a competing claim without erasing its importance or the disappointment it causes. Private gain alone creates temptation, not a rival moral requirement. Explain the priority, acknowledge the remaining cost, offer feasible mitigation and review the revised commitment; regret alone does not prove the decision wrong.

• Conflict and remaining moral cost — 2 marks
• Temptation distinction — 1 mark
• Follow-through — 1 mark
• Clarity — 1 mark

Do not equate regret with proven misconduct or claim every moral conflict is an irresolvable dilemma. Credit a concrete follow-through consistent with the stated powers, not an invented compensation guarantee.

Question 4

Matching names do not outweigh verified different identifiers. Reflective conscience prompts the reviewer to question unfair assumptions but remains fallible; evidence, not a sympathetic feeling, supports correction. Use the authorised power to separate the records and route ordinary assessment, recording reasons. Correction does not itself establish either person’s eligibility.

• Evidence versus output — 2 marks
• Fallible reflective conscience — 1 mark
• Authorised correction and review — 1 mark
• Clarity — 1 mark

The case establishes an erroneous match, not either adult’s complete entitlement or the cause of every system error. Credit evidence-based correction and continued ordinary assessment; neither blind reliance nor blind rejection of AI is enough.

Question 5

Correct the duplicate identity and give this session to B under the published rotation; A has used its turn and remains eligible next round. A duty-based reason rejects presenting unequal repeat access as faithful application of a public rule. An impartial-consequence reason considers how repeated allocations to one group deny others usable access. Reject the trustee’s demand to treat the spreadsheet as conclusive: its label does not outweigh verified organiser and membership records. Record the correction, notify both groups and provide the independent librarian’s one-working-day review route. Do not infer fraud or impose permanent exclusion. If verification instead establishes separate organisers and members and neither group has had a turn, remove the duplicate classification and use the recorded draw. The principle stays fair application of the rotation; the evidence changes the result.

• Facts and authority — 2 marks
• Two distinct reasoned lenses — 3 marks
• Feasible decision and rejected alternative — 2 marks
• Changed evidence and review — 2 marks
• Clarity — 1 mark

Credit other accurately distinguished ethical arguments tied to the facts. Do not award lens marks for names alone. The duplicate identity is a classification error to correct; the case does not prove dishonest intent. In the changed facts, B no longer has sole priority, so a model that still automatically awards B misses the transfer test.