  We tackle the problem of computing a consensus according to multiple ethical
principles -- which can include, for example, the principle of maximum freedom
associated with the Benthamite doctrine and the principle of maximum fairness
associated with the Rawlsian principles -- among the preferences of different
individuals in the context of Group-Decision-Making. More formally, we put
forward a novel formalisation of the above-mentioned problem based on a
multinorm approximation problem that aims at minimising multiple p-metric
distance functions, where each parameter p represents a given ethical
principle. Our contribution incurs obvious benefits from a social-choice
perspective. Firstly, our approach significantly generalises state-of-the-art
approaches that were limited to only two ethical principles (p set to one, for
maximum freedom, and p set to infinity, for maximum fairness). Secondly, our
experimental results considering an established test case demonstrate that our
approach is capable, thanks to a novel re-weighting scheme, to compute a
multi-norm consensus that takes into account each ethical principle in a
balanced way, in contrast with state-of-the-art approaches that were heavily
biased towards the p=1 ethical principle
