Ethical & Existential Questions

Ethical questions

An ethical question asks what people should do, what is fair or unfair, or which responsibilities matter in a situation.

Examples include whether a company should use automated systems to screen job applicants, how much privacy people should give up for convenience, or what responsibilities individuals have towards other people.

Existential questions

Existential questions concern meaning, identity, freedom, responsibility, belonging and how people understand their lives.

Examples include what makes work meaningful, how much our choices shape who we become, or how a person balances individual freedom with responsibility to others.

Facts and values do different jobs

Facts can tell us what happened, how common something is or what consequences are likely.

Values help us judge what matters and what should be prioritised.

A strong discussion makes the difference clear instead of presenting a value judgement as if it were a neutral fact.

Identify the values in conflict

Many difficult questions involve more than one reasonable value.

A debate about automated recruitment might involve efficiency, equal treatment, privacy, transparency and accountability.

The important step is to explain the conflict rather than reducing the issue to 'good versus bad'.

Perspectives depend on context

People may reason differently because they have different experiences, social positions, cultural backgrounds or priorities.

Context can explain a perspective without making every claim equally well supported.

Compare perspectives carefully and avoid treating one person as representative of an entire culture or society.

Progression across Levels 1–3

At Level 1, focus on identifying the question, explaining your own view and recognising other perspectives.

At Level 2, compare competing values and perspectives and support reasoning with relevant examples or sources.

At Level 3, analyse current and complex questions with greater nuance, including uncertainty, competing principles, wider social context and the limits of the available evidence.

Question: Should an employer use an AI system to help select job applicants?

A weak answer says: 'Yes, because AI is efficient.'

A stronger answer identifies several dimensions: efficiency may help an employer process many applications, but fairness depends on how the system was trained and evaluated. Applicants may also have legitimate concerns about transparency and how personal data is used.

The stronger response does not need to avoid taking a position. It improves the reasoning by showing which values are in conflict and what evidence would matter.

1. State the ethical or existential question clearly.
2. Separate factual claims from value judgements.
3. Identify the main values, rights, responsibilities or principles involved.
4. Identify the people or groups affected by the issue.
5. Present at least two relevant perspectives fairly before evaluating them.
6. Use evidence for factual claims and explain how that evidence affects the ethical reasoning.
7. Consider consequences as well as principles such as fairness, autonomy, responsibility or dignity when relevant.
8. Compare contexts carefully instead of assuming that one experience represents an entire country or culture.
9. Qualify your conclusion when important uncertainty remains.

Treating an opinion as a fact

Weak: 'This technology is obviously unfair.'

Better: Explain which feature may create unfairness and what evidence supports that concern.

Assuming facts automatically decide the ethical question

Evidence can show likely consequences, but people may still disagree about which values should have priority.

Creating a false two-sided debate

Not every issue has only two positions. A person may support a practice under some conditions but oppose it under others.

Using stereotypes as cultural explanations

Avoid claims such as 'people from this country believe...'. Use specific evidence and describe variation within societies and communities.

Claiming hidden motives

Analyse what a person or source argues and the evidence offered. Do not present assumptions about secret intentions as facts.

• Ethical questions concern what ought to be done; existential questions concern meaning, identity, freedom and responsibility.
• Separate factual claims from value judgements.
• Look for competing values rather than reducing complex issues to simple opposites.
• Compare perspectives fairly and in context.
• Evidence matters even when the final judgement also depends on values.
• Nuanced conclusions can recognise conditions, uncertainty and legitimate trade-offs.
• The goal is reasoned discussion, not one predetermined opinion.