Rubric · canonical · MORAL-PHILOSOPHY-v1

Moral philosophy under stated ethical framework

For arguments turning on ethical principles — autonomy, harm, virtue, justice — rather than on legal authority or empirical fact.

Status canonical Criteria 4 (weighted 30/25/25/20) Updated May 2026

When this rubric applies

The argument’s conclusion is normative — "we ought to / ought not to" — and the disagreement turns on which moral principle controls and how it should be applied. This rubric is appropriate for debates over autonomy vs. paternalism, harm thresholds, fairness/distributive justice, and virtue-grounded reasoning.

Not appropriate when: the disagreement is primarily empirical (use SCIENTIFIC-CLAIM), about what a law authorizes (use STATUTORY-INTERP), or about whether a policy’s benefits exceed its costs given an already-shared value hierarchy (use POLICY-TRADEOFF).

Criteria

1. Identification of operative moral principle

weight 30%

Does the argument name the moral principle it relies on, or does it gesture at "fairness" / "harm" without specifying?

10States the principle (e.g., "the harm principle as Mill formulated it"), defines its scope, and applies it to the facts. 7Names a recognizable principle without precisely scoping it. 4Invokes "fairness" or "harm" without specifying which version is doing the work. 1Asserts a moral conclusion without articulating any underlying principle.

2. Engagement with major ethical traditions

weight 25%

Does the argument acknowledge how its conclusion fares under consequentialist, deontological, and virtue frameworks?

10Tests the conclusion against at least two distinct traditions; engages where they diverge. 7Implicitly works within one tradition; nods to alternatives. 4Operates entirely within one tradition without acknowledging the framework choice. 1Treats one tradition’s commitments as if they were universal.

3. Treatment of edge cases and counter-intuitions

weight 25%

Does the argument engage the cases where its principle yields uncomfortable conclusions?

10Names the most challenging edge cases for the position and engages them — either biting the bullet or qualifying the principle. 7Acknowledges one major counter-intuition. 4Avoids edge cases the principle clearly implicates. 1Implicitly relies on edge-case avoidance to make the principle look universal.

4. Internal consistency across analogous cases

weight 20%

If the argument’s principle were applied to obviously-similar cases, would the speaker accept the same conclusion?

10The principle, applied symmetrically, would yield consistent conclusions across cases the speaker presumably cares about. 7Mostly consistent; one analogous case the principle would force a conclusion the speaker resists. 4The principle is invoked selectively — would force opposite conclusions in obvious adjacent cases the speaker rejects. 1The "principle" is post-hoc cover for the preferred outcome.

Version history

v1May 2026 · initial publication