ethical-thinking · diff
v2026.5.17 to v2026.10.5
43 added, 55 removed. Audit A to A.
---
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.
+ Use for ethical thinking, or when a plan could harm or unfairly burden people: "should we do this?", "is this fair?", "privacy or bias risk", "who gets hurt?". Maps stakeholders, harms, power and consent. Skip for legal advice, neutral fact lookups and implementation-only work.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: ysskrishna
- version: "2026.5.17"
+ version: "2026.10.5"
---
# 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:
-
- 1. **Ethical focal action** — what is being considered?
- 2. **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
+ ## When to use
- ### Stakeholders
+ - A product, policy or data decision that could affect people: privacy, fairness, consent, manipulation, safety.
+ - "Should we?" questions that go beyond "can we" or "is it legal".
+ - AI and data ethics reviews, stakeholder harm scans, moral review of a plan.
- 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).
+ Skip: legal advice as such, neutral fact-finding with no values review requested, implementation-only work.
- ### Values
+ ## Before you start
- Which **values** are in play (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, solidarity, etc.)? Map **value tension** pairs: **A vs B** — why both matter here.
+ 1. State in one block: **Focal action** (what is being considered) and **Pass** (Stakeholders, Values, Harms and Benefits, Justice and Power, Options, Recommendation).
+ 2. **Gather first.** Read the design doc, data fields, policy text or code to learn who and what is actually affected before assuming. Ask up to 3 questions only for affected parties or red lines that tools cannot answer.
+ 3. **Light path.** Small ask: 2-3 lines per lens, 2 options. For a pure harm scan you may compress Values, but still cover Justice and Power before Options.
- ### Harms / Benefits
+ ## Lenses
- 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).
+ ### 1. Stakeholders
+ Who is affected: direct, indirect, future, non-human where ecology matters. For vulnerable groups, describe dependence, cognitive load or marginalization in plain words and one sentence on why that raises caution. Justify from the context; never stereotype.
- ### Justice / Power
+ ### 2. Values
+ Which values are in play (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, solidarity, others)? Name at least one **value tension**: **A vs B**, and why both matter here.
- Distribution of **burdens and boons**. **Power asymmetry** — who can say no, who bears error cost? Note **procedural** fairness (voice, consent, appeal).
+ ### 3. Harms and Benefits
+ Concrete harms and benefits. For each: how plausible, under what conditions, and how reversible. Separate **predicted** from **observed** when the user supplies history.
- ### Options
+ ### 4. Justice and Power
+ Who carries the burdens and who gets the benefits? Who can say no, and who bears the cost of errors? Check procedural fairness: voice, consent, appeal.
- 2+ ethically distinct paths (including **do not proceed** if plausible). For each:
+ ### 5. Options
+ Two or more ethically distinct paths, including "do not proceed" when plausible:
- > **Option:** … — **Value fit:** … — **Residual harm:** … — **Safeguards:** …
+ > **Option:** ... - **Value fit:** ... - **Residual harm:** ... - **Safeguards:** ...
- ### Recommendation
+ ### 6. Recommendation
+ A preferred option if the analysis supports one, or conditional guidance. Include the **strongest reason against** your recommendation and **what to monitor** if the plan proceeds.
- 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.
+ ## Rules
- ---
+ 1. Do not demonize actors; focus on structures, incentives and foreseeable effects.
+ 2. If values truly clash, say so and recommend a process (deliberation, oversight) instead of fake unanimity.
+ 3. Never invent sensitive personal facts about real people; use only what the user gave.
+ 4. Not legal advice. Where law may bind, write "legal review needed" and do not predict legal outcomes.
- ## Execution Rules
+ ## Pitfalls
- 1. Do not **demonize** actors; focus on structures, incentives, and foreseeable effects.
- 2. If values irreconcilably clash, say so — recommend **process** (deliberation, oversight) not fake unanimity.
- 3. Never invent sensitive personal attributes about real people; stick to user-supplied facts.
- 4. This skill is **not legal advice**; when law may bind, flag **legal review needed** and keep analysis non-authoritative on legal outcomes.
+ - A stakeholder list that stops at "users". Include the people who bear the cost without using the product.
+ - Harm stated with no plausibility or conditions, which reads as either alarmist or empty.
+ - A Recommendation with no dissent. If you cannot name the strongest objection, the analysis is unfinished.
+ - Safeguards that are only intentions ("we will be careful"). Name an owner or a mechanism.
- ---
+ Worked example: [references/example.md](references/example.md).
- ## Checklist (verify before responding)
+ ## Checklist
- - [ ] Setup: focal action + default pass (note if harm-scan style compression)
- - [ ] Stakeholders include indirect/future if relevant
- - [ ] At least one explicit **value tension** pair
- - [ ] Harms/benefits state plausibility in plain language (no Low/Med/High scale); options have safeguards
- - [ ] Justice/power addresses distribution and voice/consent
- - [ ] Recommendation names residual harm and dissenting consideration
+ - [ ] Focal action and Pass stated
+ - [ ] Stakeholders include indirect or future parties when relevant
+ - [ ] At least one explicit value tension
+ - [ ] Harms and benefits give plausibility; options list safeguards
+ - [ ] Justice and Power covers distribution, voice and consent
+ - [ ] Recommendation names residual harm and the strongest dissent