How to Answer an Ethics Case Study
A method for unseen cases that works under time pressure, and the single classification that decides how the whole answer should be written.
Part 2 · Pressure From Above
Part 3 · Discrimination and Dignity
Part 4 · Competing Goods
Part 5 · Common Mistakes and Final Advice
Straight from the syllabus
Case Studies on the above issues.
Case studies carry a large share of the marks in GS Paper IV and are where every earlier chapter is finally tested.
What the examiner is testing
A case study does not test whether you reach a particular conclusion. Two candidates can choose differently and both score well, or both choose correctly and score differently. What is being assessed is the quality of the reasoning that produced the choice.
That has a practical consequence for how you write. The conclusion should occupy a small part of the answer and the reasoning most of it, which is the reverse of how nervous candidates allocate space. Stating a decision confidently with little justification reads as assertion; setting out the considerations and then deciding reads as judgement.
Classify first: the move that decides everything
Chapter 15 established the distinction and it is the most valuable single habit in this paper. Before writing anything, determine whether you are facing a temptation or a dilemma.
A temptation is a situation where the right course is clear and doing it carries a cost: a bribe offered, an instruction to falsify, pressure to favour a relative. There is nothing to balance. The answer should say so directly, and then spend its length on how to refuse effectively and at what cost, because the difficulty is practical rather than moral.
A dilemma is a situation where two courses each have a genuine ethical claim and satisfying one means failing the other: development against displacement, transparency against privacy, efficiency against equity. Here the answer must weigh, and must name the value being sacrificed rather than pretending the chosen course is costless.
Misclassifying is fatal in both directions. Treating a bribe as a dilemma makes you appear to be negotiating with wrongdoing. Treating a genuine dilemma as obvious makes you appear not to have understood it.
A structure that fits the time
Under examination conditions a reliable structure has six moves, and they should be visible to the marker without being laboured.
State the core issue in one or two sentences, in the form: I cannot do X without failing Y. This demonstrates immediately that you have identified the actual conflict rather than the surface facts.
Identify the stakeholders and their legitimate interests, briefly. Include the three groups routinely omitted: those who are absent, those who cannot complain effectively, and those who come later, including your successor who inherits the precedent.
Name the principles in conflict, drawing on the values chapters: integrity, impartiality, compassion, accountability, transparency, proportionality. Where the three ethical lenses from Chapter 15 diverge, say where and why.
Set out two or three genuine options with the ethical cost of each. This is where most marks are won or lost. One real option flanked by two obviously wrong ones is a straw-man answer and examiners recognise it immediately.
Decide, clearly, and justify against the principles you named. State the cost you are accepting. Avoid the temptation to leave the conclusion open in the hope of appearing balanced; refusing to decide is itself a poor answer to a question about what you would do.
Add the systemic recommendation. What would prevent this situation arising for the next officer. This single move distinguishes the strongest answers, because it demonstrates the institutional understanding that Chapters 16 to 25 have been building.
Choosing an option defensibly
Four tests, drawn from earlier chapters, resolve most cases and are quick enough to apply mentally.
Legality. Is any option unlawful? If so it is unavailable, and the analysis is only about the remaining ones. This disposes of a surprising proportion of scenarios.
Publicity. Could you state your actual reasoning openly to those affected? Reasoning you would conceal is usually rationalisation.
Generalisation. Would you apply this as a rule to every similar case? An administrative decision sets a precedent whether or not you intend it, so a course you would not generalise is one you should not take.
Reversibility. Where uncertain, prefer the option that does the least irreversible harm if your judgement proves wrong. Chapter 15 gave this weight in development and environment cases particularly.
The voice to write in
A final point of craft that affects marks more than candidates expect. Write as an officer, not as a commentator: I would do this, for these reasons, accepting this cost.
Avoid two failure modes. The first is heroic posturing, in which the candidate resigns, defies everyone and accepts martyrdom; it reads as unserious because administration is not done that way. The second is excessive caution, in which every difficulty is escalated upward; Chapter 15 noted that referring a matter purely to make it someone else’s is not a resolution.
The register that scores is measured and practical: acknowledge the pressure honestly, take a position, explain how you would implement it in a way that is defensible and survivable, and say what should change so the next officer does not face the same problem.
Reading the question stem
The scenario is followed by specific questions, and marks are lost by candidates who write a general essay on the situation instead of answering what was asked.
Identify the ethical issues involved asks for analysis, not action. Name the values in tension and the interests at stake.
What options are available to you asks for a genuine range with the merits and costs of each, and the answer should not collapse into a single recommendation.
What would you do and why asks for a decision. Take one, justify it, and state the cost.
Critically examine asks you to weigh both sides before concluding, and an answer that only advocates has not done what was requested.
Where several sub-questions are asked, answer them in order and separately. A single flowing narrative that touches everything makes the examiner search for your answers, and searching costs marks.
Managing the time
Case studies are long and the temptation is to spend the first several minutes rereading. A workable allocation for a twenty-mark case is roughly three minutes reading and planning, twelve minutes writing, and one minute checking that every sub-question has been addressed.
The planning minutes are the ones candidates skip and should not. Writing down the classification, the two or three options and the decision before beginning produces an answer with a visible spine; writing without it produces one that discovers its position halfway through and then has to defend it retrospectively.
If time runs short, protect the decision and the systemic recommendation. An answer that analyses at length and never decides scores worse than one that analyses briefly and concludes clearly.
Where candidates lose marks
Skipping classification. Decide first whether it is a temptation or a dilemma; everything else follows from that.
Offering one real option and two straw men. Give two or three genuine courses with the cost of each.
Refusing to decide. Balance is not the same as indecision; the question asks what you would do.
Revision checklist
- Reasoning is assessed, not the conclusion; allocate space accordingly.
- Classify first: temptation (clear but costly) or dilemma (competing goods).
- Six moves: core issue, stakeholders, principles in conflict, real options with costs, reasoned decision, systemic recommendation.
- State the issue as: I cannot do X without failing Y.
- Include absent, voiceless and future stakeholders.
- Four tests: legality, publicity, generalisation, reversibility.
- Write as an officer; avoid heroic posturing and reflexive escalation.
- Always name the cost you accept and end with prevention.
Outline the approach you would follow in answering an ethics case study, and explain why classification of the situation should precede analysis. (10 marks, 150 words)
Approach: begin with classification and justify it, since a temptation requires an answer about how to refuse at cost while a dilemma requires weighing competing goods, and misclassifying either way damages the entire response. Then set out the six moves: state the conflict as X against Y, identify stakeholders including the absent and voiceless, name the principles in tension, present two or three genuine options with their ethical costs, decide with justification and an acknowledged cost, and close with the systemic change that would prevent recurrence. Add the four quick tests, legality, publicity, generalisation and reversibility, and note that the answer should be written in an officer’s voice.
Comments are closed here on purpose — so that every question lands in one place where I actually reply. Drop yours under the latest ethics lecture and I will answer it there.
