Publication record
- Original publication period
- July–December 2023
- Digitized / uploaded online
- August 10, 2026
The digitization/upload date records when this file was added to the website; it is not the article's original publication date.
Abstract
Ethics courses often introduce moral theories and then ask students to apply a fixed sequence to dilemmas. A sequence can make reasoning visible, but it may also encourage the mistaken belief that ethical judgment is an algorithm that converts facts and principles into one uncontested answer. This conceptual-pedagogical article analyzes a college Ethics worktext as an instructional source and develops the Reconstruct-Enumerate-Articulate-Search-Own-Notice (REASON) framework for ethical deliberation in general education. The framework retains the worktext's emphasis on facts, issues, principles, alternatives, consequences, and decisions while adding stakeholder mapping, role responsibility, uncertainty, safeguards, implementation, and post-decision review. REASON asks learners to reconstruct the situation and distinguish evidence from assumption; enumerate affected parties, claims, relationships, and authority; articulate values and test the case through consequences, duties and rights, justice, virtue, care, and the common good; search for alternatives that reduce avoidable harm and preserve legitimate claims; own a publicly defensible decision and implementation plan; and notice outcomes, objections, and reasons for revision. Two analytical tools accompany the framework: a comparison of ethical lenses and an assessment map that connects each stage with an observable student product and a characteristic reasoning error. The article argues that case-based ethics should assess the quality of deliberation rather than agreement with an instructor's preferred conclusion. Strong work identifies morally relevant facts, represents perspectives fairly, applies more than one lens without merely listing theories, responds to counterarguments, respects legal and professional constraints without equating legality with morality, and specifies who should act, when, and under what safeguards. The contribution is an instructional design framework rather than an empirical claim about learning gains. It offers a transparent way to connect moral theory, cultural context, professional roles, moral courage, and accountable action across multidisciplinary college programs.