Three people are asked by a pursuer where a fleeing woman went. One lies to save her, one tells the truth for the entertainment, one tells the truth on principle — and each guesses the situation wrong. What does the example show?
That intention, outcome and act can each be good or bad independently — so the three ethical theories are distinguished precisely by which of the three they take as the basis of evaluation.
The three scenes, each with the same setup and a different motive:
| Motive | What she does | How it turns out | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virtue ethics | "He means her harm — I want to save her" | Points in the wrong direction | The woman was a thief; she escapes and goes on stealing |
| Consequentialist thinking | "This could get interesting" | Points in the right direction | The woman was a thief; the pursuer (the victim of the theft) catches her and she is punished |
| Duty ethics | "One must never lie" | Tells the truth | The woman was fleeing her violent husband, who finds her and beats her |
Now ask the three questions the example is built to expose: were her intentions good? were the consequences good? were her deeds good? For each of the three women a different one of those answers is yes — and none of them scores well on all three.
That is the whole point. The scenes are not a puzzle with a solution; they show that the three evaluations come apart, so a theory of ethics must decide which basis of evaluation it gives priority to. Types of ethical argument can be told apart precisely by that choice:
- Virtue ethics — wanting the good and following one's conscience.
- Consequentialist ethics — achieving the good, attending to the consequences of action.
- Duty ethics — doing what duty requires, and doing it out of duty.
Tip: Best intentions, best result, right act — pick which one you would defend in front of a person harmed by the other two. That choice is your ethical position.