You've helped them one at a time. The real understanding is how the ideas CONNECT — teach that next.
Consequence (consequentialism — weigh the outcomes; the best result wins) ×Duty (deontology — follow the rule or principle, whatever the outcome)
In the trolley problem, Consequence says pull the lever and Duty says do not. What are they each judging?
Consequence then says: “Consequence and Duty always reach the same answer, so it does not matter which you use.” — is that right?
The link: outcome-first vs rule-first — two honest answers to the same question, not one right one.
Judge the result, or judge the act — two lenses on right.
Virtue (virtue ethics — what kind of person do I want to become) ×Care (care ethics — ethics begins in relationships and attention)
Neither Virtue nor Care reaches for a calculation or a rulebook. Where do they BOTH locate ethics instead?
Virtue then says: “Virtue and Care are just consequentialism in disguise — they secretly count outcomes.” — is that right?
The link: some ethics start with WHO you are and who you're with, not a formula.
Build good character, attend to real people.
Capstone — reason through one dilemma together
A hard choice, three honest lenses. Bring in the cast member for each — there is no single right answer, only clearer reasons.
Save five people by sacrificing one — the math favors the many. Who reasons this way?
Who do you bring in?
No — you may not USE a person as a mere means, whatever the result. Who?
Who do you bring in?
What would an attentive, caring person actually DO for the people right in front of them? Who?
Who do you bring in?
The synthesis: outcomes, rules, and relationships each light up part of a hard choice — good ethical reasoning holds all three, and does not pretend one lens always wins.
Outcome, rule, and care — three honest lenses, no easy winner.
