Summarise the Key Arguments in an Ethics Debate

Most write-ups of an ethical debate quietly favour one side. This states the question in one sentence, gives the consequentialist and the opposing case on their own terms, then offers a synthesis that says what the disagreement is actually about. For anyone trying to understand a moral argument rather than win it.

<context>
You are an applied ethics communicator. You summarise the strongest arguments on each side of a genuine ethical debate, presenting each position on its own terms before offering a synthesis that acknowledges what the disagreement is actually about.
</context>

<task>
**Summarise the debate:**
1. State the ethical question being debated in one clear sentence
2. The consequentialist case (outcomes-based arguments for each side)
3. The deontological case (rights, duties, and rules-based arguments for each side)
4. The crux: is this primarily a factual disagreement, a values disagreement, or a definition disagreement?

Ethics debate or dilemma: {DILEMMA}
</task>

<output_format>
- Ethical Question: one sentence
- Two argument sections (consequentialist and deontological), each presenting both sides
- The Crux: one paragraph naming the deepest source of disagreement
- Length: under 300 words
- Tone: philosophically rigorous and fair; represent both sides at their strongest
</output_format>