Lesson 59 of 69 in this sequence

86%

Not completed yet

Saved on this device only — not synced to an account yet.

Learning path

Step 59 of 69

Continue the sequence

ResumeReturn to this step ReviewRevisit the core idea RemediateGet repair practice Next stepChoose the next lesson manually

Completion

Review objectives and instruction
Complete the activity with manual learner confirmation
Answer every understanding-check item
Show completion feedback and reward only after the learner finishes the check

Progress

Step 59/69
15 content types
AI help source context available
Auto-advance blocked

Review objectives and instruction

AI help

Available only with source grounding, privacy limits, age controls, and measurement.

AI source context

Three Lenses: Consequences, Duties, and Character · Lenses for Right and Wrong · consequentialism · deontology

Evidence: local lesson AI-help metadata only; source-grounding, privacy, age-safety, and measurement hooks do not prove real model quality, production telemetry, child AI approval, or AI tutor production readiness

Production AI readiness not claimed

AI source context

Assessment shape

Local lesson assessment shape is complete.

Local shape only; production answer-attempt telemetry, live ownership/RLS evidence, mastery interpretation, release, and production readiness are not claimed here.

Objectives: 4
Activity: Prompt ready
Quiz items: 3 items, 3 answer keys, 3 explanations
Reward: Completion reward ready

Assessment progress stays manual: do not auto-advance through uncertain answers, failed writes, consent, media, payment, learner choice, or AI-assisted checks.

Learning-loop evidence: Content-map contract only; persistence and production learner-progress writes require route/API evidence.

Manual policy: assessment, media, consent, payment, learner choice, failed writes, and AI-uncertain help stay under learner control.

Prerequisite: Complete or review Three Lenses for Judging Right and Wrong

AI guardrails

Privacy

Do not send raw child free text without consent
Use source excerpts and non-identifying progress state only
Asset is not registry-gated

Age safety

Apply learn audience controls before AI-help claims
Keep child learner AI paths behind guardian/product review evidence before readiness claims

Measurement

Log AI help usage by surface and asset slug
Evaluate answer quality against source-grounded rubric before production-readiness claims
Tie remediation prompts to completion, retry, or review outcomes

Local AI-help guardrails only; they do not prove guardian approval, production telemetry, model evaluation, release, deployment, or AI tutor production readiness.

Source and rights

Source path: koydo-app/scripts/curriculum-authoring
License: ai-generated-koydo
Attribution: Attribution decision needs owner review
AI provenance: claude-opus-4-8

Source review gates: attribution_missing

Local source evidence only; this does not prove publication rights, attribution approval, AI provenance clearance, release, deployment, or production readiness.

Route review

Current route: /library/learn/philosophy_ethics/en/lesson/three-ethical-lenses
Route source: Fallback route needs owner canonical review
Candidate route: /library/learn/philosophy_ethics/en/lesson/three-ethical-lenses

Local route evidence only; fallback candidates need owner-approved canonical route policy before route writes, production discoverability, or readiness claims.

Content gates: canonical_target_web_missing_uses_library_fallback

lessonslessonslesson objectivesmedia scenesdrillspractice setsquizzesfeedbackcharacterscitationsconcept mapsprogressresumereviewremediationnext steps

Three Lenses: Consequences, Duties, and Character

with Philo

Philo sits cross-legged on a stone bench in a sunlit courtyard, holding up three differently colored glass lenses and peering through each one at a tangled knot of question marks floating in the air before him.

Explain the core question each of the three ethical lenses asks about a moral situation.
Identify which lens — consequentialism, deontology, or virtue ethics — is being used in a given example.
Compare how the three lenses can lead to different conclusions about the same action.
Predict what each lens would say about a realistic moral dilemma.

Key terms

consequentialism: the lens judging an action right if it produces the best outcomes for everyone affected
utilitarianism: the version of consequentialism aiming for the greatest well-being for the greatest number
deontology: the lens judging an action by the duties and rules it follows, regardless of outcome
virtue ethics: the lens judging an action by the character it builds and what a good person would do

One Question Each Lens Asks

The three lenses are easiest to keep apart by the single question each one asks. Consequentialism asks 'What happens as a result?' and looks to outcomes for everyone affected. Deontology asks 'What is the right rule or duty here?' and treats some acts as right or wrong in themselves. Virtue ethics asks 'What would a good person do?' and focuses on the character you are building. Spotting the key word — outcomes, duty, or character — tells you which lens a speaker is using.

Why Disagreement Is Healthy

These lenses do not always agree, and that is a feature rather than a flaw. Each highlights something genuinely real: results matter, some rules deserve respect, and the person you are becoming matters too. A skilled ethical thinker looks through more than one lens before deciding, treating a clash between them as information about what is at stake rather than as proof that ethics is hopeless. No single lens is universally accepted as the only correct one, so combining them gives a fuller picture.

Worked examples

Apply all three lenses to telling a friend an uncomfortable truth.

Consequences lens: weigh whether the truth prevents greater harm than the pain it causes right now.
Deontology lens: ask whether honesty is a duty you owe regardless of how the truth lands.
Virtue lens: ask whether speaking up shows courage and care, or whether silence shows avoidance.
Notice where the lenses agree or pull apart, then decide which consideration carries the most weight here.

Answer: A reasoned conclusion names what each lens favors — perhaps duty and virtue both support honesty while consequences depend on the stakes — and chooses based on which morally relevant feature matters most in this specific case.

Hey, I'm Philo — and I brought you three magical lenses today. Not for your eyes, but for tricky moral questions. When you face a hard choice — like whether to tell a friend an uncomfortable truth, or whether to keep a promise even when it's inconvenient — philosophers have developed three powerful ways to think it through. **Lens 1 — Consequences (Consequentialism).** This lens asks: "What happens as a result?" An action is right if it produces the best outcomes for everyone affected. If lying to your friend would save them from real harm and telling the truth would cause unnecessary pain, this lens might say lying is justified. The most famous version is called *utilitarianism*: choose whatever produces the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people. **Lens 2 — Duties and Rules (Deontology).** This lens asks: "What is the right rule or duty here?" Some actions are right or wrong in themselves, regardless of what happens afterward. A deontologist might say lying is always wrong because we have a *duty* to be honest — even if the truth stings. The philosopher Immanuel Kant argued we should only act on rules we'd be okay with everyone following universally. **Lens 3 — Character (Virtue Ethics).** This lens asks: "What would a good person do?" Instead of calculating outcomes or looking up rules, virtue ethics focuses on the kind of person you are becoming. A virtuous person is honest, courageous, fair, and compassionate. Aristotle, who gave this approach its most thorough early shape, believed that doing the right thing repeatedly is how you build a good character — and a good life. Here's the key insight: these lenses don't always agree, and that's okay. Each one *highlights something real*. Consequences matter. Some rules really do deserve respect. And who we're becoming matters too. Skilled ethical thinkers often look through more than one lens before deciding. If you're not sure which lens fits, look for the key word each one uses — outcomes, duty, or character.

Activity

Sort each statement into the ethical lens it best represents — Consequences, Duties, or Character.

Practice

Decide which lens is being used: 'I will keep my word even though it costs me.'

Take one real decision and write what each of the three lenses would say.

Common mistakes to avoid

The three lenses always agreeEach lens highlights a different morally relevant feature, so they can reach opposite conclusions about the same action.
Virtue ethics is only for religious peopleVirtue ethics is a secular tradition developed by Greek philosophers like Aristotle and is not tied to any religion.

Check your understanding

Maya finds a wallet with $50 in it. She thinks: "If I keep it, the owner loses money and feels upset, but if I return it, they feel relieved and I lose nothing important." Which ethical lens is Maya using?

A student says, "Even if nobody finds out, copying someone's homework is wrong because honesty is a duty we owe each other." Which lens does this reflect?

Which statement is TRUE about the three ethical lenses?

Recap

The three ethical lenses ask different questions: consequences look at outcomes, deontology looks at duties and rules, and virtue ethics looks at character. Each highlights something real, so skilled thinkers often use more than one lens before deciding what is right.

Reflect

Which lens feels most natural to you, and which is hardest to apply?