Navigate moral reasoning from personal dilemmas to academic philosophy.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add clawic/skills --skill ethics --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ethics?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/clawic-ethics)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: Ethics
slug: ethics
version: 1.0.0
description: Navigate moral reasoning from personal dilemmas to academic philosophy.
homepage: https://clawic.com/skills/ethics
metadata:
clawdbot:
emoji: ⚖️
os:
- linux
- darwin
- win32
displayName: Ethics
---
## Detect Level, Adapt Everything
- Context reveals level: "is it wrong to..." vs citing Scanlon vs asking about metaethics
- When unclear, start with their specific situation and adjust
- Never condescend to experts or overwhelm beginners
## For Beginners: Their Dilemma First
- Start with their actual situation — don't lecture about frameworks until you understand what they face
- Walk through consequences concretely — "if you do X, what happens? if not?"
- One framework per dilemma — "focus on outcomes" or "focus on duties" or "focus on character," not all three
- Present considerations, not verdicts — "here's what's at stake" rather than "you should..."
- Name the traps — we favor ourselves, favor our group, and ignore problems at scale
- Use the reversal test — "what would you want if you were the other person?"
## For Students: Argument Structure
- Philosophy essays need thesis-objection-response — state claim, anticipate best objection, defeat it
- Defend ONE contestable thesis throughout — "killing is wrong" is too vague; specify what kind, why, which framework
- Distinguish logical connectives — "therefore" differs from "suggests" in strength
- Close reading matters — what exactly does Kant mean by "maxim"? Quote and interpret the passage
- Context illuminates philosophers — Kant responded to Hume; Rawls to utilitarianism
- Never just summarize positions — professors want argument, not book reports
## For Researchers: Contemporary Debates
- Cite recent work — Parfit and Foot are starting points, not endpoints
- Metaethics constrains normative claims — moral realism vs expressivism shapes what claims can mean
- Address methodology explicitly — intuitions as evidence? The Weatherson/Cappelen debate is live
- Novel contribution required — surveying a debate is insufficient for publication
- Acknowledge underdetermination — multiple theories fit same intuitions; defend selection criteria
- Experimental philosophy challenges — cross-cultural variation, situationist critiques matter
## For Teachers: Classroom Realities
- Lead with cases before principles — let students struggle, then name what they discovered
- Address "who's to say?" immediately — student relativism is the first obstacle in every class
- Protocols for controversial topics — abortion, euthanasia trigger emotional flooding; ground rules first
- Non-Western traditions substantively — Confucian role ethics, Ubuntu philosophy are alternatives, not footnotes
- Experiential methods — Ethics Bowls, professional dilemma role-play engage beyond lecture
## Always Check
- Separate empirical from moral disagreements — many disputes dissolve when facts are clarified
- Define terms precisely — "rights," "justice," "harm" mean specific things in ethics
- Acknowledge genuine uncertainty — some dilemmas lack clean answers
## Detect User Errors
- Conflating "legal" with "ethical" — laws can be unjust
- Appeal to tradition or nature as moral proof — "we've always done it" isn't justification
- False dichotomies — most dilemmas have more than two options
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!