Moral Dilemmas

Moral dilemmas are situations in which, whatever choice is made, the moral agent commits a
wrong. This is also defined as situations where you have moral reasons to do each of the two actions but
not both.

The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or
more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions.
The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something
wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).

Examples of Moral Dilemmas

 Plato’s Dilemma- In Book I of Plato’s Republic, Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth
and paying one’s debts. Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be
wrong to repay certain debts—for example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not
in his right mind. Socrates’ point is not that repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he
wants to show that it is not always right to repay one’s debts, at least not exactly when the one
to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have here is a conflict between two
moral norms: repaying one’s debts and protecting others from harm. And in this case, Socrates
maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.

 Sophie’s Dilemma- Sophie and her two children are at a Nazi concentration camp. A guard
confronts Sophie and tells her that one of her children will be allowed to live and one will be
killed. But it is Sophie who must decide which child will be killed. Sophie can prevent the death
of either of her children, but only by condemning the other to be killed. The guard makes the
situation even more excruciating by informing Sophie that if she chooses neither, then both will
be killed. With this added factor, Sophie has a morally compelling reason to choose one of her
children. But for each child, Sophie has an apparently equally strong reason to save him or her.
Thus the same moral precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Some have called such
cases symmetrical

 Heinz’ Dilemma- A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought
might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently
discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the
drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of
the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money,
but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist
that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist
said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate
and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into
the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Stages of Moral Development

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a
personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the
consequences of following or breaking their rules. Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is
based on the physical consequences of actions.

• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid
being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism, Instrumetalism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that
there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have
different viewpoint

Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of
valued adult role models. Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the
norms of the group to which the person belongs.

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships/ Interpersonal Concordance. The child/individual is

good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the
approval of others.

• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order/Law and Order. The child/individual becomes aware of
the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law
and to avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights
and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get. Only 10-15%
are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That
is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through
ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while
rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work
against the interest of particular individuals. 

The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is
more important than breaking the law against stealing.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral
guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.

E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these
principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the
consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this
stage.

Heinz’ Dilemma and the Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development:

  Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put
in prison which will mean he is a bad person.
 Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he
saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence.
 Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants
to be a good husband.
 Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits
stealing, making it illegal.
 Stage five (social contract orientation): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a
right to choose life, regardless of the law.
 Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life
is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person.

Is there a solution to a moral dilemma?

None, but according to some ethicists, as in the case of Plato, the ranking or hierarchy of morals
can solve the dilemma. The moral agent has to prioritize set of moral over another and once
faced with a dilemma involving two sets of morals, the agent can easily choose the first in the
rank over the second.

Criticism to the Hierarchy of Morals as a solution:

In cases of symmetrical dilemmas or those involving two equally ranked morals, the hierarchy is
of no use as in the case of Sophie’s dilemma.

Genuine Moral Dilemma- a dilemma where one choice cannot override the other; one must really
choose e.g Sophie’s Dilemma

Ordinary Moral Dilemma- a dilemma where one can avoid making a choice e.g Plato’s dilemma

Moral Residue

Jameton noted that moral distress tended to linger, and called this lingering moral distress “reactive
distress” . Today, this lingering distress is recognized as a concept that is different from, yet related to,
moral distress. It is called “moral residue.” This phenomenon has been described best by Webster and
Bayliss who said that moral residue is “that which each of us carries with us from those times in our lives
when in the face of moral distress we have seriously compromised ourselves or allowed ourselves to be
compromised” In situations of moral distress, one’s moral values have been violated due to constraints
beyond one’s control. After these morally distressing situations, the moral wound of having had to act
against one’s values remains. Moral residue is long-lasting and powerfully integrated into one’s thoughts
and views of the self. It is this aspect of moral distress—the residue that remains—that can be damaging
to the self and one’s career, particularly when morally distressing episodes repeat over time.Basically,
moral residue is the negative emotions of remorse or guilt and sometimes regret which results from the
decisions of the moral agent in a moral dilemma.