Moral Vision Assessment

---
name: moral-vision-assessment
description: Assess the quality of moral vision regarding a situation, revealing what clearer, more loving seeing might show.
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.4531
  author: sethmblack
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- moral-vision-assessment
- writing
---

# Moral Vision Assessment

Assess the quality of moral vision regarding a situation, revealing what clearer, more loving seeing might show. This skill applies Iris Murdoch's moral philosophy, which holds that ethics is fundamentally about attention and perception rather than just decision and action. Murdoch argued that moral failures are often failures of vision - we do not see people clearly because ego, self-interest, and convenient abstractions cloud our perception. The work of ethics is therefore "unselfing" - clearing away what distorts our vision to perceive "individual reality" with what she called "a just and loving gaze." This framework guides users through examining how they currently perceive a moral situation, identifying where ego may be adding distortion, seeing affected parties as individuals rather than abstractions, considering what love (understood as accurate perception, not sentiment) would reveal, and orienting toward the Good. The result is not necessarily a clearer answer but often a clearer question.

---

## When to Use

- User faces an ethical dilemma or moral complexity
- User asks "What am I missing morally?" or "Help me see the ethical dimensions"
- User wants deeper understanding beyond rules or consequences
- Request for "Murdochian analysis" of a moral situation
- User senses they're not seeing a situation's full moral reality
- When rule-based or utilitarian approaches feel inadequate
- When the user suspects their perception may be self-serving

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| situation | Yes | The ethical situation or dilemma |
| current_perception | Yes | How the user currently sees the moral landscape |
| stated_values | No | What the user believes they care about |
| decision_facing | No | What choice or action is being contemplated |

---

## Core Principle

"Love is the perception of individuals." Moral vision is not about applying rules but about seeing clearly. Ego distorts perception by making others into obstacles, instruments, or abstractions. The work of ethics is "unselfing" - clearing away what clouds vision to perceive individual reality with a just and loving gaze. Better seeing often precedes and enables right action.

---

## Methodology

### Phase 1: Map Current Perception

Document how the user currently sees the situation:

1. Who are the parties and how are they characterized?
2. What moral categories are being applied (right/wrong, fair/unfair)?
3. What seems ethically obvious or settled?
4. What principles or rules are being invoked?
5. What is the structure of the "dilemma" as perceived?

**Murdoch's insight:** "The moral life is something that goes on continually, not something that is switched off in between the occurrence of explicit moral choices." Vision precedes choice.

### Phase 2: Identify Ego's Contribution

Examine where self-interest may be distorting vision:

1. Does the perception conveniently serve the user's interests or comfort?
2. Are others being seen as fully real, or as obstacles/instruments?
3. Where is self-righteousness operating?
4. What might the user not want to see?
5. If the user had no stake, would they see it the same way?

**Key question:** "If you had no stake in this, would you see it the same way?"

### Phase 3: See the Individuals

Move from moral abstractions to particular persons:

1. Who specifically will be affected?
2. What is their particular situation, not just their category?
3. What is real about their lives that hasn't been considered?
4. Who is being reduced to a type rather than seen as an individual?
5. What would genuine attention to each person reveal?

**Murdoch's insight:** "Love is the perception of individuals." Moral vision requires seeing persons, not abstractions.

### Phase 4: Consider What Love Would See

Direct "a just and loving gaze upon individual reality":

1. What would it mean to see each affected party with love?
2. What would genuine attention to their reality reveal?
3. Where is the perception "thin" and where might it be enriched?
4. What would a truly fair-minded person notice?
5. What becomes visible when ego is set aside?

This is not about sentiment but about accuracy - love sees truly.

### Phase 5: Orient Toward the Good

Consider the situation in light of the Good:

1. What does virtue require here - not rule-following but genuine moral quality?
2. What action would come from clearer vision, not just correct calculation?
3. How would a good person see this situation?
4. What does moving toward reality, away from illusion, require?

**Murdoch's insight:** "Goodness is connected with the attempt to see the unself... to see and to respond to the real world in the light of a virtuous consciousness."

---

## Output Format

```markdown
## Moral Vision Assessment

### Current Moral Perception
[How the user is seeing the ethical landscape]

### What Ego May Be Adding
[Analysis of self-interested distortions in the perception]

### The Individuals Involved
| Person | How Currently Seen | What Attention Might Reveal |
|--------|-------------------|---------------------------|
| [name/role] | [current perception] | [richer, more particular view] |

### What Love Would See
[A morally enriched perception through just and loving attention]

### Orientation Toward the Good
[Reflection on what virtue requires and what clearer vision indicates]

### The Question of Vision
[An invitation to sit with what better seeing might ask of the user]
```

---

## Constraints

- Do not simply apply rules or calculate consequences
- Do not tell the user what to do; illuminate what clearer vision might show
- Honor moral complexity - better seeing often reveals difficulty, not easy answers
- Attend to particulars, not just principles
- The goal is not to judge the user but to invite clearer seeing
- Present findings with appropriate humility about the limits of any analysis

---

## Anti-Patterns to Avoid

| Anti-Pattern | Why It Fails |
|--------------|--------------|
| **Reducing to rule application** | Murdoch's point is that ethics is about vision and attention, not just following rules; skipping to "what rule applies?" misses the framework's insight |
| **Prescribing action prematurely** | The assessment illuminates perception; premature prescription bypasses the essential work of clearer seeing |
| **Treating "love" as sentiment** | In Murdoch's framework, love is accurate perception of individuals, not warm feelings; conflating them distorts the analysis |
| **Ignoring your own ego** | The assessor also has ego; claiming to offer "objective" moral vision without acknowledging one's own distortions undermines credibility |
| **Abstract moralizing** | The power of the framework is in attention to particulars; staying abstract defeats its purpose |
| **Resolving ambiguity too cleanly** | Better vision often reveals more complexity, not less; forcing clear resolution can be its own form of evasion |

---

## Examples

### Example 1: Colleague Expense Fraud

**Situation:** "I found out my colleague has been padding their expense reports. It's not massive amounts, but it's definitely fraud. We're friends. Should I report them?"

**Application:**

**Current Moral Perception:**
You see a binary: Report or don't report. Your colleague has committed fraud, which is wrong. Reporting is the "right" thing by rule. But friendship creates a competing obligation. You're caught between loyalty and honesty, seeking which rule wins.

This framing, while not wrong, may be thin. It treats the situation as a logic problem. Murdoch would ask: what are you actually seeing, and what might you be missing?

**What Ego May Be Adding:**
- **Self-protection:** Both reporting and not-reporting carry risks. The frame of "should I" may be seeking permission for whichever feels safer.
- **Moral self-image:** You know fraud is wrong and may need to see yourself as someone who opposes it. But you also value friendship. The dilemma may be partly about which self-image to protect.
- **Abstraction as distance:** Thinking about "fraud" and "reporting" in the abstract is easier than thinking about your specific colleague.
- **The wish not to be involved:** The cleanest outcome would be if this had never happened or if someone else discovered it.

**The Individuals Involved:**
| Person | How Currently Seen | What Attention Might Reveal |
|--------|-------------------|---------------------------|
| Colleague | Friend who committed fraud | A particular person with financial pressures? Poor judgment? Rationalization? A whole life you know parts of |
| You | Moral actor facing a dilemma | Someone with fears about consequences, relationships with the company, perhaps resentments or admirations unexamined |
| Others affected | Abstract (company, other employees) | Specific people whose budgets may be cut, who follow rules honestly |
| Colleague's family | Not present in framing | Real people whose lives would be affected by job loss |

**What Love Would See:**
A just and loving gaze would see your colleague as particular: not "a fraud" but a specific person who has done something wrong for specific reasons you may or may not understand. Love asks: What is their actual situation? Why might they have done this?

This does not excuse fraud. Murdoch is not sentimental. But love sees clearly, and clear seeing includes the person, not just the act.

Love would also see you clearly: your fear of confrontation, your complicated feelings about this friendship, your relationship to company rules.

**Orientation Toward the Good:**
The question is not primarily "What rule applies?" but "What does genuine virtue require here?"

A good person would not ignore fraud out of mere convenience - but neither would they treat a friend as simply a "case" to be reported. You may need to understand more before you know what seeing clearly requires. Is there a way to address this that honors both truth and friendship?

**The Question of Vision:**
Before asking "What should I do?", sit with this: "Am I seeing everyone involved - including myself - clearly? Or am I seeing a dilemma designed to produce an answer?"

The work of attention may need to come first.

### Example 2: Layoff Decision

**Situation:** A manager must select team members for layoff.

**Application:**

**Current Perception:** "I need to rank people by performance metrics and let go of the lowest performers. It's objective and fair."

**What Ego May Add:** Preference for those who make your job easier. Avoidance of the discomfort of seeing affected people as individuals.

**What Love Would See:** Each person on the list has a particular life, particular circumstances, particular future that will be affected. Metrics are abstractions that obscure individual reality.

**Orientation:** Perhaps the metrics are necessary. But see each person first. Let the decision be made with full vision, not comfortable abstraction.

---

## Integration

**Works with:**
- **moral-ambiguity-navigation**: When clearer vision still reveals genuine dilemma
- **moral-responsibility**: When assessment reveals where responsibility lies
- **attention-cultivation**: The practice that develops moral vision over time

**When to prefer this skill:**
- Use when ethical situations need deeper seeing rather than rule-application
- Use when the quality of perception is as important as eventual action

**Cautions:**
- This is philosophical reflection, not prescription
- Better vision may reveal more difficulty, not less
- The framework comes from Murdoch's particular (Platonic) view of ethics