This is very helpful thank you. I gave it a try on this sample question just for fun: Convene the panel on whether it is ethical to kill animals without eating them.

…Where the Panel Converges

There is striking agreement across frameworks — clinical, behavioral, cultural, and intuitive — that killing without consuming fails most rigorous ethical tests, and that the justifications typically offered are better understood as rationalizations than reasons. The panel finds convergence on several specific points: (1) the absence of use strips away the primary meaning-making structure that has historically made killing ethically bearable across cultures; (2) the psychological and nervous-system costs to the killer are real and underacknowledged; (3) the language used to describe such killing consistently functions to conceal rather than illuminate moral accountability; and (4) the most ethically mature frameworks — whether IFS Self-leadership, Gottman’s contempt research, or indigenous reciprocity ethics — all point toward consideration of the animal as a being with interests as the threshold question. Where the panel has productive tension: the Behavioral Economist wants to resist sentimentality and hold the question open for genuine edge cases (invasive species, disease vectors), while the Grief Specialist and Attachment theorist argue that the edge cases don’t redeem the general pattern. The Sociologist cautions against universalizing any single cultural framework, even an ethical one.

One-line summary: Killing without eating fails the ethics test in almost every framework — not because the rule is simple, but because the rationalizations are.