Once upon a time, in a small rural community, there lived a group of people led by a wise and compassionate leader. Though they had many differences and came from very different backgrounds, they as a collective shared a strong sense of morality and justice.

One day, the leader of this community was presented with an ethical dilemma. In order to sustain the wellbeing of the population and ensure that the community could continue to thrive, the leader had to choose between two options. First, he could use the resources of the community to fund a project in a neighboring region, which would lead to the displacement of the people living there, or second, he could choose not to fund the project, but risk having to divert resources away from caring for those already in the community.

This posed a very difficult decision to the leader. Utilitarians would argue that the leader should weigh the pleasure and suffering of both these scenarios and choose the one with the greatest utility. Kantians would argue against perpetuating harm to an autonomous agent and instead focus on the duty to not harm. Martin Buber would focus on relationships, emphasising the importance of the relationships between members of the affected communities.

No clear guidance could be found on the answer, so the leader was left to decide on his own. He spent a long time in solitude considering the consequences of his decision, until eventually he came to an answer which he felt combined all three of the ethical approaches. Though it was still a difficult decision, he was at least glad that he had been able to conscientiously come to a conclusion.

The leader valiantly continued his work of protecting and nurturing his beloved community and its inhabitants, likely with the thought that the decision he had made was the best he could have done.

The end.