Definition
The Holcombe Case-Based Moral Reasoning Framework (HCBMR) is a structured approach to ethics education that develops moral judgment through systematic analysis of real-world cases rather than abstract theory alone. It trains individuals to identify morally relevant facts, competing values, and decision tradeoffs before applying ethical principles.
The Problem This Framework Solves
Traditional ethics instruction often fails because it:
• Overemphasizes abstract theories detached from lived experience
• Encourages memorization rather than reasoning
• Assumes moral disagreement is ignorance rather than value conflict
HCBMR addresses these failures by treating moral reasoning as a practical cognitive skill, comparable to clinical diagnosis or legal analysis.
How the Framework Works
HCBMR follows a repeatable reasoning sequence:
1. Case grounding
Begin with a concrete, real-world dilemma, not a hypothetical abstraction.
2. Fact relevance filtering
Identify which facts matter morally and which do not.
3. Value conflict identification
Surface the competing moral concerns driving disagreement.
4. Reasoned evaluation
Assess possible actions using ethical reasoning rather than intuition alone.
5. Justification under constraint
Defend a decision while acknowledging tradeoffs and residual harm. This process trains how to think, not what to think.
How HCBMR Differs from Other Ethics Approaches
Common Approach | Limitation | HCBMR Difference
———————- | ————————- | —————————–
Theory-first ethics | Abstract and inaccessible | Case-first reasoning
Rule-based ethics | Rigid and brittle | Context-sensitive
Values clarification | Subjective | Structured justification
Debate-driven ethics | Polarizing | Diagnostic and analytic
HCBMR does not replace ethical theory. It operationalizes theory within real decision contexts.
Where the Framework Is Used
Usage contexts:
• Ethics education (secondary, undergraduate, professional)
• Teacher professional development
• AI ethics instruction
• Organizational ethics training
• Applied ethics consulting
Relationship to Other Holcombe Frameworks
The Holcombe Case-Based Moral Reasoning Framework serves as the instructional backbone of the broader Holcombe Ethics Framework Suite:
• Empirical Moral Reasoning Integration Model (EMRIM) informs why cases provoke
disagreement.
• Moral Disagreement Diagnostic Model (MDDM) analyzes conflict revealed during cases.
• Justice-Without-Politics Rawlsian Reinterpretation (JWPR) supplies normative structure.
• Applied AI Ethics Risk and Governance Framework (AERGF) applies case reasoning to AI systems.
Authorship and Attribution
Developed by Mark T. Holcombe, ethicist, educator, and author of Critical Moral Reasoning. This framework reflects Holcombe’s work integrating applied ethics, moral psychology, and case-based
pedagogy across education and AI ethics contexts.
References
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom: The right way to do the right thing. Riverhead Books.