How often have you witnessed a ‘debate’ in which various of the participants are on different wavelengths? One sees the issues as ‘black and white’, while another sees many ‘shades of gray’, and yet another sees layers of complexity in full colour. Even when directors share a common ‘moral lens’ though, their stakeholders don’t.

Dealing effectively with such differences is not simply a matter of dismissing other points of view. Effective governance requires more sensitivity, and being open to the possibility that disagreements can be addressed by yet another perspective, which may be surfaced through structured exploratory effort. That’s what the 6D Moral Imagination (MI) Framework sets out to address.

Not everything is ‘black and white’

Rules and fairness are essential foundations, but some dilemmas go beyond what rules can resolve. For example:

• “What happens when two rules conflict?”
• “What if doing what’s ‘right’ for one person causes injustice for another?”

In medical ethics, doctors sometimes face choices where every option carries harm. They aren’t morally confused — they’re morally serious. In the Justice system, ‘good’ judges don’t just follow rules — they weigh principles, context, and intent to reach just outcomes. So too in associations, charities, and community organisations. While some matters are ‘black and white’, others require nuanced deliberation and occasionally, the creation of a novel solution to a complex problem.

The 6D MI Framework and the MTFT

The foundational thinking model (Meta-Taxonomy of Foundational Thinking – MTFT) offered in my previous post was essentially a linear model of rational thought. That linearity was moderated however, by use of an integrative loop, linking all deliberative stages (from goal setting to outcome) with our primary purpose (and with our mission and values of course). That’s great when we already have a clear agreed purpose. Regrettably, in the nonprofit sector, we often find that reaching such agreement is one of the hardest stages of the decision-making process.

Echoing Einstein’s insight—“If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions”—reaching agreement on a shared and meaningful purpose may require effort, but it is essential for achieving a successful outcome.

The 6D MI Framework may be considered a companion framework for the MTFT, focused on the leverage offered by use of the moral imagination. Think of it as one of the key references employed when using the integrative loop to support ethical decision-making. A follow-up post will consider ways in which the 6D MI Framework can inform the work of nonprofit leaders.

What is moral imagination?

A suggested by the header image above, Generative AI (GAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that can create new content, like text, images, or code, based on what it has learned from existing data. It’s great that we can teach machines to be ‘creative’, but we are not doing it for them. As well as helping machines to exercise a form of ‘imagination’ to help us think, we also need to keep refining our own capacity for innovation. One important aspect of that is our ability to imagine the resolution of ethical problems. Generative Moral Imagination (GMI) is therefore just as important as GAI.

The term ‘moral imagination’ refers to a family of related capacities — empathic, cognitive, narrative, symbolic, and dialogical — that allow people and communities to envision, evaluate, and inhabit ethical possibilities in complex, pluralistic contexts. These capacities are required for ethical deliberation and decision making, especially where competing values and mindsets are involved.

While many authors have provided us with insights about moral imagination, four in particular have contributed to the definition used here, as illustrated in the chart below.

John Paul Lederach emphasises relational and transformational aspects, describing moral imagination as an ethical discipline involving “paradoxical curiosity,” “navigating complexity,” and “creating constructive social change through imaginative engagement.” His ‘four disciplines of moral imagination’ have been summarised in the chart below.

Mark Johnson and George Lakoff argue that all moral understanding is metaphorically structured, rooted in embodied cognition. In their view, ‘moral imagination’ is the mechanism that allows us to simulate moral scenarios, generate new meanings, and escape moral rigidity.

Thomas E. McCollough’s moral imagination is civic and dialogical, highlighting how ethical reasoning in democratic contexts must embrace complexity, humility, and intersubjective accountability.

Charles Taylor brings moral imagination into philosophical anthropology, arguing that individuals and societies need narrative and symbolic imagination to locate themselves ethically within pluralism.

Beyond the group of thought leaders who have published books on the topic, other significant public figures have long advocated for ‘moral imagination’, even before the term was known. The following selection of quotes highlights some of these.

Thinking algorithms

AI prompt engineering has given us several ways of describing thought patterns or algorithms that can guide an LLM in shaping its response e.g. chain of thought (CoT), tree of thought (ToT), graph of thought (GoT) etc.. Some of those patterns have been adapted here for use in the 6D MI Framework.

For guidance on AI prompt engineering using chain of thought and related algorithms, refer to material at the following helpful links:
https://www.mercity.ai/blog-post/guide-to-chain-of-thought-prompting
https://www.promptingguide.ai/techniques

What is the 6D MI Framework?

The 6D MI Framework is a dimensional tool for nonprofit leaders to align their thinking mode with the complexity and moral depth of the challenge they face. It empowers ethical agility—moving from rule-based decisions to co-creative, systemic transformation—by scaffolding how individuals and teams recognise, navigate, and respond to ethical tensions in pluralistic and dynamic environments.

The chart below details the structure of the 6D Framework, and links each dimension to a cognitive form and ethical expression. The lozenge shape at the top includes an outline of the different ways thinkers at each of the six levels approach an issue or problem.

The 6D Framework complements design thinking, polarity thinking, and systems mapping, while expanding at the 4D-6D levels into generative, empathic, and symbolic dimensions that traditional logic models often miss.

Generative MI – 5D and 6D Levels

While levels 1D – 4D will be familiar to most readers, the 5D and 6D levels may require further elaboration.

The 5D level is described as the Manifold of Thought. Its core reasoning mode is ‘paradox navigation’ and symbolic-moral integration. That integration engages competing truths, values, and plural frames, and works within ambiguity and tension. The illustration which follows offers some idea of the range of factors and considerations addressed at this level, along with a suggested cycle or process that may be used to engage the moral imagination at this level.

The 6D level as labelled ‘Field/Ecosystem of Thought’. The core reasoning mode here is emergent, and future-generative moral imagination. It seeks to transcend linear strategy to co-create new ethical realities through participation and imagination. The next chart uses a plex of sub-dimensional emphases and lenses, set within the complex field of factors and circumstances that may have bearing on the issue at hand. The integral approach at this level aims to take account of the entire field or ecosystem, recognising that all ‘parts’ are simply aspects of one complex situation.

5 ways of explaining the 6D Framework

As for the previous post on the Meta-Taxonomy of Foundational Thinking, 5 ways of explaining the 6D MI Framework are provided here for clarity.

Note: Explanation 3 broadly aligns with the Feynman Technique, in that it simplifies without diluting, contextualises complexity, and promotes practical fluency.

A menu of thinking options

The MI Framework offers a dimensional map across which the full typology of reasoning styles can be distributed. It helps leaders ask:

• What kind of thinking is required here?
• Is this a rule-following challenge, a pattern-seeing opportunity, or an emergent ethical question?

The typology of thinking styles listed below features the usual menu of options available to those charged with solving a problem and/or making a decision. The 6D Framework does not seek to replace or augment this typology, but rather to draw upon it as appropriate for each of the six dimensions. The chart which follows the typology suggests which thinking styles or ‘modes’ are likely to be involved for each of levels 1D – 6D.

The metaphor of a thinking mode selector is illustrated here, followed by a set of selection criteria you may use depending on the type of issue and/or moral challenge you are facing.

Part 2 follows

Part 2 of this series suggests some of the ways nonprofit leaders may wish to use the 6D MI Framework to enhance their ethical deliberations.

See also:
Foundational Thinking for Nonprofit Leaders
First Principles First
The (mind) map is not the territory
Filters and Factors in Deliberation
Temporal Sensemaking and Reflective Governance
The Dimensionality of Thought and Ethical Leadership – Part 2 (Praxis)