Most "ethics" advice is useless in the moment because it's too abstract. Here's the actual tool I use — and now teach — for real dilemmas: at work, in relationships, online.

The 3-question test:

1. Consequences — Who is helped or harmed by this, and how badly?

2. Duty — Am I breaking a promise, a rule, or someone's trust to get here?

3. Character — If my closest friends watched me do this, would I still feel proud of it tomorrow?

You don't need a philosophy degree to run this. You need 10 seconds and the discipline to actually pause before you act.

A real example: A manager finds out a top-performing employee padded their expense report by $40. Firing them feels harsh — they're valuable and it's a small amount. Ignoring it feels wrong — it's still dishonest, and word travels fast in a team.

Run the test:

• Consequences: Ignoring it teaches the whole team that small dishonesty is fine if you're good enough. That compounds.

• Duty: Expense reports are a trust contract. It was violated, regardless of the amount.

• Character: Looking the other way because someone is "valuable" is the exact reasoning behind every cover-up that later became a scandal.

The answer isn't necessarily "fire them" — it's "don't ignore it." A serious conversation, repayment, and a clear line for next time often resolves it. The test doesn't hand you the verdict — it forces you to actually look at the situation from three angles instead of one gut reaction.

Most people only ever ask the consequences question ("did it work out okay?"). That's how otherwise good people end up justifying bad calls. Add the other two questions and your decisions get a lot more consistent.

If you want the full framework with more worked examples, I built it out as a beginner course — link in the company profile. Either way, try the 3-question test on the next decision you're wrestling with. It works.