Ethical Frameworks and Theories
Ethical frameworks give candidates a vocabulary for justifying decisions. The core families are consequentialism (judge acts by outcomes - e.g., utilitarianism maximizing aggregate welfare), deontology (duty- and rule-based, honoring rights and treating people as ends, associated with Kant), virtue ethics (character and dispositions - what would a prudent, honest practitioner do?), and justice/fairness theories (distributive fairness, Rawls's veil of ignorance, and care ethics emphasizing relationships and vulnerability). Also know principlism as applied in bioethics and AI: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice - the basis for many data-ethics codes.
Traps: (1) assuming one framework is always correct - questions often reward recognizing which lens a scenario invokes; (2) confusing utilitarian aggregation with fairness - maximizing total benefit can justify sacrificing a minority; (3) mislabeling a rule-following answer as consequentialist, or an outcome-based answer as deontological; (4) overlooking that frameworks can conflict, and good practice documents the trade-off rather than pretending it away.
Rule of thumb: name the lens before you judge. If a question asks why a decision is defensible, identify whether the justification rests on outcomes, duties/rights, character, or distributive fairness - the answer usually hinges on that match.
Worked example: A hospital deploys a triage model that improves overall survival but disadvantages a subgroup. A utilitarian may accept it on net-benefit grounds; a deontologist objects to unequal treatment as a rights violation; a justice lens demands scrutiny of who bears the burden. A strong answer acknowledges the conflict and proposes mitigation plus transparency.