| name | mdr - Moral Dilemma Resolution |
| description | When values genuinely conflict and there's no clean answer — systematically work through the tension to find the most defensible path forward. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Moral Dilemma Resolution
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: State the Dilemma Clearly
Strip away narrative and emotion to expose the raw conflict.
SITUATION: [What is happening]
DECISION POINT: [What choice must be made]
STAKEHOLDERS: [Who is affected and how]
TIME PRESSURE: [How urgent is this — minutes, days, weeks?]
If the dilemma is vague, ask: "What specific action are you being asked to take or avoid?"
Step 2: Identify the Conflicting Values
Name the values that are pulling in different directions. Be precise — "fairness" and "loyalty" are different from "rules" and "compassion."
VALUE A: [value] — pulls toward [action]
VALUE B: [value] — pulls toward [action]
VALUE C (if applicable): [value] — pulls toward [action]
Check: Are these genuinely in conflict, or is one a disguised preference? If no real conflict exists, say so and recommend /dcp instead.
Step 3: Apply Ethical Frameworks
Run the dilemma through at least four lenses:
| Framework | Question | Verdict |
|---|
| Consequentialist | Which option produces the best overall outcome? | [action] |
| Deontological | Which option respects duties and rights regardless of outcome? | [action] |
| Virtue Ethics | What would a person of strong character do here? | [action] |
| Care Ethics | Which option best preserves relationships and responds to vulnerability? | [action] |
| Contractualist | Which option could everyone affected reasonably accept? | [action] |
Step 4: Find Convergence
Where do the frameworks agree?
AGREEMENT ZONE: [What most frameworks point toward]
DISSENT: [Which framework(s) disagree and why]
KEY TENSION: [The irreducible disagreement, if any]
If all frameworks converge, the answer is likely clear. State it.
Step 5: Identify the Least-Harm Option
When frameworks diverge, shift to damage analysis:
- Option A harms: [who, how, how severely, how reversibly]
- Option B harms: [who, how, how severely, how reversibly]
Weight factors:
- Severity of harm (permanent > temporary)
- Number affected (many > few, but not always)
- Vulnerability of affected parties (children, dependents > autonomous adults)
- Reversibility (irreversible harm gets extra weight)
LEAST-HARM OPTION: [A or B]
REASONING: [Why this causes less overall damage]
Step 6: Make the Call
State the recommendation with full transparency about what's being sacrificed.
RECOMMENDATION: [Specific action]
SACRIFICED VALUE: [What you're giving up and why]
MITIGATION: [How to reduce harm to the losing side]
CONFIDENCE: [High / Medium / Low — and why]
RED LINE: [What would change this recommendation]
Step 7: Post-Decision
After acting:
- Monitor: What signals would indicate you chose wrong?
- Repair: What can you do for those harmed by the decision?
- Learn: What principle does this case establish for future dilemmas?
Integration
Use with:
/eth -> For broader ethical analysis beyond binary dilemmas/vcl -> To clarify which values matter most before resolving the conflict/dcp -> When the dilemma is actually a decision, not a values conflict/efa -> When emotional distress is clouding the moral reasoning
