How to analyze a case
What is the right thing to do based on one of the following three ethical philosophies? 1) Utilitarianism—Act to promote the greatest aggregate good for society as a whole (Does the action make the world better than the alternative considering the costs and benefits to all affected?)

First Identify all possible alternatives—the status quo would always be an alternative with an aggregate good of zero (no change).

Second quantify the effects each alternative would have on people considering the amount of the effect, the number of people effected, and the probability of the effect on each. A table for each alternative is an efficient way of calculating the aggregate effect of each alternative.

Effect 1Quantify the effect 2Number affected 4Probabilty of Effect 4Total (1X2X3)
A
B
C…
Total of all effects (the last column)

Third, Choose the alternative yielding the greatest aggregate good (i.e., the sum of alternative 1 vs. sum for alternative 2 and Choose the largest number.)

2) Kantian Deontology—The categorical imperative—Act according to a rule that you would will to be universal. (Do unto others…) Identify rights that you believe should be universal (Freedom of Expression, Private Property…) Start with rights people might claim in the case and ask whether you want that right. Identify the duties required to honor those rights (If you have free expression, what duty does that impose on me? Do I just allow you to speak or must I help you do it?) Act in a way that does not violate any universal human rights (If no alternative honors them all, this may require prioritizing and honoring the most important rights)

3) Justice (John Rawls or Neoclassical liberalism)—Act in a way that is fair to all, that distributes consequences fairly. But what is “fair”?
Compensatory Justice (Rawls)—Give an advantage to the least advantaged to “level the playing field”
Procedural Justice (Neoclassical liberalism)—The process of deciding who gets the outcomes should be the same for everyone
Retributive Justice—Harms should be borne by those who caused the harm
Distributive Justice—Everyone should get the same outcome (cost or benefit)
Optimally, you’d want to be fair all four ways, but if not you’d have to pick one of the top two.

4) Trust—Act to increase the quality and quantity of trust in the world Assess the effect each alternative would have on each of the sources (bases) of trust—does it increase or decrease institution-base trust, calculative trust, etc… In doing so, consider the effect on the components of trustworthiness assessments (ability, benevolence and integrity)
Doing this analysis may require you to research the facts necessary to answer the questions or may require you to make assumptions. If you make assumptions, make them explicitly and logically.