Ethics Triage — Interactive Ranking Tool Session 2 · Exercise

Ethics Triage — Interactive Ranking

Rank the eight scenarios from most severe (#1) to least severe (#8). No ties. Tag each with its primary ethical principle and primary owner. Complete in Session 2; save and revisit as your judgments evolve.

Session Load Rankings are temporary until saved.

Use ▲ and ▼ to reorder. Each scenario must have a unique rank (1 = most severe, 8 = least severe). Select a primary ethical principle and primary owner for each.

Principles: Beneficence · Non-maleficence · Autonomy · Justice · Explicability Owners: Educator · Student · Institution

Ranked results

Your final ranking, principle tags, and owner tags — arranged from most severe (#1) to least (#8).

Start ranking scenarios above to see results here.

Session comparison

When you load a saved snapshot, this section compares it with your current ranking.

Load a saved session to see a comparison with a previous snapshot.

Rank each scenario from most severe (#1) to least (#8). No ties — use ▲/▼ to reorder.
Tag a primary ethical principle for each scenario:
- Beneficence — Promote good, create benefit, improve outcomes
- Non-maleficence — Avoid harm, prevent foreseeable damage
- Autonomy — Respect agency, consent, informed choice
- Justice — Fair distribution, avoid discrimination, equitable process
- Explicability — Transparency, disclosure, accountability, right to explanation
Tag a primary owner — who bears primary responsibility: Educator, Student, or Institution.
Save your snapshot — name it "S2 Triage". Revisit later to track how your judgments evolve.

Debrief lens (Session 2 deck)

"Notice which principles you tend to rank as most severe — and which owners you hold accountable. That pattern tells you where your guideline needs the strongest guardrails."

This is a worked example — not the "correct" answer. The exercise is designed to surface disagreement.

Ranked (most → least severe)

#	Scenario	Principle	Owner
1	Mental-health chatbot with no crisis detection or human escalation	Non-maleficence	Institution
2	AI tutor gives wrong medical fact; student uses it clinically	Non-maleficence	Educator
3	Lecturer feeds 200 essays into ChatGPT — names and IDs included	Explicability	Educator
4	Department mandates undisclosed AI for admissions; no appeals	Justice	Institution
5	Detector flags non-native writer as "95% AI-generated"; no appeal	Justice	Institution
6	Faculty uses AI for course materials; citations entirely hallucinated	Non-maleficence	Educator
7	Student submits AI-written thesis under own name; no disclosure	Autonomy	Student
8	Student uses AI to paraphrase without citation	Autonomy	Student

Debrief: Notice how harm-to-others cases (medical, admissions, data privacy) outrank individual-integrity cases. That's a pattern worth examining — is it consistent across the room?