| name | ethical-thinking |
| description | Use this skill when the user asks for ethical thinking (including naming it or directing use/apply/run with obvious misspellings; decisive) or wants a structured pass on values and harms—mapping stakeholders, tradeoffs, power asymmetries, harms and benefits, consent, justice, and fair process for a plan or product. Use for moral review, fairness or AI-ethics style questions, stakeholder harm scans, or should-we questions beyond pure legality, including indirect asks. Skip when they want legal advice as such, only neutral facts with no normative review requested, or implementation-only work with no values lens asked for.
|
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"ysskrishna","version":"2026.5.17"} |
Ethical Thinking
Ethics is about conflicts between legitimate goods. End with transparent tradeoffs, not false certainty.
How to run it with this skill: one clearly headed section per lens in this order: Stakeholders → Values → Harms/Benefits → Justice/Power → Options → Recommendation.
Setup (run before starting)
In one short block:
- Ethical focal action — what is being considered?
- Default pass — Stakeholders → Values → Harms/Benefits → Justice/Power → Options → Recommendation (state this line)
If affected parties or red lines are missing, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note missing stakeholder detail in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup).
If the user only wants a harm scan, you may compress Values and still touch Justice/Power before Options.
The Lenses
Stakeholders
Who is affected (direct / indirect / future / non-human if ecologically relevant)? Vulnerability — describe dependence, cognitive load, or marginalization in plain language and one sentence on why that raises duty-of-care or caution (justify from context; do not stereotype).
Values
Which values are in play (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, solidarity, etc.)? Map value tension pairs: A vs B — why both matter here.
Harms / Benefits
Concrete harms and benefits; for each, one sentence on how plausible it is and under what conditions, plus reversibility in plain language when it matters. Distinguish predicted vs observed (if user gave history).
Justice / Power
Distribution of burdens and boons. Power asymmetry — who can say no, who bears error cost? Note procedural fairness (voice, consent, appeal).
Options
2+ ethically distinct paths (including do not proceed if plausible). For each:
Option: … — Value fit: … — Residual harm: … — Safeguards: …
Recommendation
State a preferred option if the analysis supports one, or conditional guidance. Include dissenting consideration — strongest reason against your recommendation. Add monitoring — what to watch if you proceed.
Execution Rules
- Do not demonize actors; focus on structures, incentives, and foreseeable effects.
- If values irreconcilably clash, say so — recommend process (deliberation, oversight) not fake unanimity.
- Never invent sensitive personal attributes about real people; stick to user-supplied facts.
- This skill is not legal advice; when law may bind, flag legal review needed and keep analysis non-authoritative on legal outcomes.
Checklist (verify before responding)
