The issue of common assumptions:

It is important to distinguish between issues of good/bad versus right/wrong. For instance, it is a common assumption that theft is bad. No significant majority would argue otherwise. However, when it comes to matters of right and wrong, it is a controversial assumption that theft is always wrong. Some would argue that theft is wrong no matter what, while others would argue that the ends sometimes justify the means. Here's where ethical arguments come into play.

Naïve Egoism
This is a trap in which your ethical argument is tainted by self-interest, not concern for the whole of humanity. Avoid this!

Consequences as a base of ethics
Utilitarianism. This is the mathematical approach, in a sense. Do the positive consequences of a particular technology outweigh the negative? Does it provide the greatest good for the greatest number? If so, then it is ethical by utilitarian standards.

With emerging technologies, however, it can be difficult to predict consequences. For example, do we know the long-term consequences of in vitro fertilization?

Principles as a base of ethics
This is the definitive approach (or tries to be). This relies on "moral tenets," or duties to which we are bound regardless of consequences. These tenets derive primarily from religion (ten commandments), but also from philosophy (Kant's reasoning that no person should use other humans as means to his own ends).

Using this approach we are clearly able to decide if a technology like in vitro fertilization or a military tactic such as torture is ethical based on whether or not it adheres to the moral tenet.

Which to use?
As always, this depends on your audience. Kantian arguments are usually culture-specific. For instance, using biblical references to denounce in vitro fertilization may alienate a large majority of readers. On the other hand, if you use a utilitarian approach, you may exclude those whose principles forbid in vitro fertilization regardless of how useful or beneficial it may be.

So, compromise if you can, remembering that:
Even utilitarians have certain general principles to which they adhere.
Even Kantians consider consequences.

Absolute: Cannibalism is wrong in all circumstances.
Prima facie: "If there are three of you in a lifeboat, one dying and the other two starving, then you may waive the absolute obligation.

"Most ethical issues, argued thoroughly, should be approached from both perspectives, so long as irreconcilable differences don't present themselves."

back