Lesson 1.

1: The Nature of Philosophy and Ethics

1. What is philosophy?
Before we discuss ethics, it is important to understand philosophy since ethics is a branch of the latter. You
may have encountered the term philosophy before and its definition as the love of wisdom may already be
familiar. Actually, the term was first coined by the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras.
He was the first to use the ancient Greek word φιλόσοφος (philosophos), which means lover of wisdom. The
root words of this word are φιλία (philia), which means love, and σοφία (sophia), which means wisdom.
Literally, therefore, philosophy means the love of wisdom. This is the etymology of the term philosophy.    

Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570-490 B.C.E.)

The love that characterizes philosophy, i.e. philia, however, is nothing of the erotic or romantic nature. The
experience of philia is quite similar to the longing to be with a friend; to be close to him and be with his
company. This is why philia is commonly understood as fraternal love or friendship. But what does a
philosopher desire to be with? A philosopher longs or desires to know the truth. Philia, therefore, is the longing
to know the truth of things and knowledge of the truth is wisdom. Now, the desire to know the truth always
starts with wonder. This wonder is not just any kind of feeling of amazement. Rather, it is the experience of
being puzzled or perplexed by big questions such as "Why do we exist? Why do we suffer? If God exists, why
does he allow us to suffer? Is there really a God? How is it possible that I know things at all?" When you ask
these questions you begin to wonder and when you begin to wonder you begin to think. Thinking is the
business of philosophy. Such is why the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates claims that "philosophy begins in
wonder" (Theaetetus 155c-d). 

Socrates (469–399 B.C.E.)

Commenting on Socrates' words, the Greek philosopher Aristotle says, 

For men were first led to study philosophy, as indeed they are today, by wonder. Now he who is perplexed and
wonders believes himself to be ignorant . . . they took to philosophy to escape ignorance (Metaphysics 982b).

Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.)
As a discipline, philosophy is technically defined as the science that investigates the first and ultimate causes,
reasons, or principles of all beings using human reason alone. Let us analyze this definition into three points.
First, philosophy is a science. Now, every system of knowledge is a science. Like physics, biology,
mathematics, etc., philosophy is a system of knowledge; thus it is a science. Physics, biology, mathematics,
philosophy, etc., therefore, belong to the group or genus science. 

What is studied in philosophy? We come to the second point of our analysis. The definition above says that
philosophy investigates the first and ultimate causes, reasons, or principles of all beings. This means that
philosophy studies the fundamental reasons of all things that exist or all beings. A chemist will tell you the
atomic weight of each element in the periodic table, but a philosopher will try to ask something more
fundamental like "Why do the elements exist at all? Is matter all that there is in the universe? Is there a
principle behind material phenomena?" All these questions are subsumed in one of the biggest questions of
philosophy, "Why is there being?"

In other words, the first and ultimate causes, reasons, or principles of all beings pertain to the why of all beings.
When you possess knowledge of the why of beings, you gain knowledge of something fundamental. This is
wisdom or sophia, knowledge of the first and ultimates causes of all beings. Thus, recalling the definition of
philosophy as the love of wisdom, it can be understood as the longing or desire to know the first and ultimate
causes of all beings.  

Moreover, as the science that investigates the fundamental reasons of all beings, philosophy can be
considered as the science which encompasses all others. It lies at the foundation of any particular field of
study. Doing mathematics, for instance, is one thing, but asking "Why is Mathematics important?" is a
philosophical endeavor. Other sciences may also ask the question why, but not in the same way as philosophy
does. Such is why Aristotle regarded philosophy as the mother of sciences.  

But what makes philosophy really different from other sciences? This is now the third point of our analysis.
Philosophy is distinct from the other sciences in the sense that in studying the fundamental reasons of all
beings, it uses human reason alone. Scientists rely on the scientific method to verify the truthfulness of their
claims. Philosophers, however, only use the power of human reason. This does not mean that philosophy is
less scientific. It means that when philosophers make claims, they provide reasoned arguments or rational
justifications for their claims. Consider arguing with a friend on the goodness of getting vaccinated in a time of
pandemic. Your friend argues, "Getting vaccinated is good since the government says it is so." His claim is not
rationally justified at all. He merely states an opinion. But when you argue, "Getting vaccinated is good since it
promotes the common good, and the common good is always the measure of goodness." then you have at
least provided a rational justification why you think getting vaccinated is good. Your claim or argument is
reasoned. This is what it means to think in philosophy. It involves the sole use of human reason in providing
reasoned arguments or rational justifications for one's claims. 

Given the nature of philosophy, it is also important to note that even philosophers themselves do not agree on
a single definition of the discipline. Different philosophers throughout the ages have provided varying definitions
of the study. For example, 20th century German philosopher Karl Jaspers defines it as the discipline in which
questions are more important than answers because answers themselves will in turn become questions. You
may well keep this in mind especially as we progress in this course. The questions you have right now may
lead to further questions. As we progress, you may start questioning your own beliefs on ethics or morality and
end up with no definite answer (hopefully Part III of the course will help you with this), but do not get
disheartened because such is the nature of philosophy. The answers may not appear now, but the important
thing is you learned to raise questions that make you think. 
 Karl Jaspers (Feb. 23, 1883-Feb. 26, 1969)

1. What is philosophy?
1.1. Branches of Philosophy
Philosophy has four major branches, namely, logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology. Let us discuss
each of them.

Logic is the study of correct and valid reasoning. The term comes from the Greek word λόγος (logos), which
can mean reason, word, discourse, or truth. To say that philosophy involves philosophical thinking, i.e.
providing reasoned arguments for one's claims, means that one's reasoning must be correct or valid. Logic
helps one to attain this. Thus, logic also provides the tools needed for correct reasoning. Some of the questions
raised in logic are: What are the principles of correct reasoning? What makes an argument valid and correct (or
invalid and incorrect)? What is a fallacy? 

Metaphysics is the study of things beyond the physical. The term comes from the Greek words μετα- (meta-), a
prefix which means beyond, and φύσις (physis), which means nature. This branch studies the fundamental
principles of being or existence, causality, and possibility among others. Such principles are beyond the grasp
of our senses which are only bound to physical objects; hence, metaphysical. The term metaphysics is also the
title of Aristotle's major philosophical work, that is Metaphysics. But Aristotle did not use such title nor describe
his study as metaphysics. The term was first used by the 1 st century CE editor who compiled smaller selections
of Aristotle's works, placing it after another work of Aristotle entitled Physics. Hence, the word literally means
'after the Physics.' Nevertheless, Aristotle considers the subject matter of his study as 'first philosophy.' This
does not mean that it should be the branch to be studied first, but that its subject matter is fundamental and
primary in terms of the nature of things. Metaphysics has a general branch called ontology and three special
branches, namely, theodicy, rational psychology, and cosmology.

Ontology is the study or science of being. The term comes from the Greek words ὄντως (ontos), meaning
being, and λόγος (logos), meaning discourse or study. Being pertains to that which is or anything that exists,
whether material or immaterial. Material beings include animals, trees, bodies of water, buildings, humans, etc.
Immaterial beings include concepts such as love, justice, freedom, etc. Ontology studies beings according to
their first and ultimate causes. In other words, it studies the why of beings. All these why's are subsumed in the
more general question "What is being?" Other general questions in ontology include the following: Why do
things exist rather than not exist? What is the nature of reality? What is the principle of all that is? 

The special branches of metaphysics focus on specialized topics. Theodicy is the special branch of
metaphysics broadly defined as the study of God. It investigates the nature of God's being by raising questions
like "Is there a God? If God exists, what is he like? What is his nature? How can we rationally prove that he
exists?" The term was coined by the 18th century German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in his 1710
book Théodicée. Considered specifically, theodicy studies the justification of God's goodness in the face of
evil's existence in the world. This specific definition is hinted by the word's etymology. The word theodicy
comes from the Greek words θεος (theos), meaning god or deity, and δίκη (dike), meaning right or justice. It is
important to note that, in studying God, theodicy uses human reason without the aid of faith. This makes it
different from revealed theology, which presupposes belief in the truth of God revealed through divine
scriptures. 

Rational psychology is the special branch of metaphysics that studies the soul. The term psychology comes
from the Greek words ψυχή (psyche), meaning soul or mind, and λόγος (logos), meaning discourse or study. It
investigates the nature of the soul as a component of human essence. The ancient belief in the after life entails
the notion of the soul's existence. Hence ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle began
philosophizing about the soul. This branch raises questions like "Does the soul exist? What proofs are there for
the soul's existence? Is it immortal?"

Cosmology is the special branch of metaphysics that studies the world or universe. The term comes from the
Greek words κόσμος (kosmos), meaning world or universe, and λόγος (logos), meaning discourse or
study. This branch inquires into the nature and origin of the world as well as the elements that constitute it. It
raises questions like "Where does the world originate? Is there a principle behind all changes that occur in the
world? Is the world finite or infinite? What are time and space?"

Epistemology is another major branch of philosophy defined as the study of knowledge. It comes from the
Greek words ἐπιστήμη (episteme), meaning knowledge, and λόγος (logos), meaning discourse or study. This
branch investigates the nature and scope of human knowledge. It raises questions like "What is knowledge?
How is it possible that we know? What makes knowledge true? How do we know that what we know is true?
What is truth?"

The last major branch of philosophy is axiology. It is the philosophical study of value. The term comes from the
Greek words ἀξίᾱ (axia), meaning value or worth, and λόγος (logos), meaning discourse or study. It involves
the study of the things that individuals value and the fundamental reasons why they are valued as such.
Axiology is further divided into ethics and aesthetics. 

Ethics is the study of the morality of human actions. The term comes from the Greek word ἦθος (ethos) which
means custom or habit. Morality pertains to the the values of good and bad (hence ethics is a branch of
axiology). We usually attach the moral values of good and bad to our actions. Ethics investigates the principles
that define the morality of actions by raising questions like "What makes a good action good? How should we
conduct ourselves to become good and thus attain the good life?"

Aesthetics is the study of beauty. It comes from the Greek word αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos), meaning sentient or
pertaining to sense perception. Beauty is something that humans value (hence aesthetics is a branch of
axiology). We attach beauty to things like art for instance. Aesthetics raises questions about the nature of
beauty such as whether beauty objectively exists independent of individual perception, or simply dependent on
individual perception. 

Aside from these four major branches, there are other branches of philosophy which have emerged throughout
the centuries. There is, for example, political philosophy or the study of politics; philosophy of man or the study
of the nature of man as such; philosophy of science; philosophy of mathematics; philosophy of language
among others. But these branches may already presuppose the questions raised in the major branches. 

1.2. Is philosophy relevant?

Philosophy is relevant in many ways. Given its nature (as shown by the elaboration of its definitions in the first
page), we can infer at least two things that make philosophy relevant. 

First, by teaching us how to think philosophically, philosophy makes us independent thinkers. This means that
philosophy hones our rational ability by allowing us to think by and for ourselves. As humans, each of us
possesses reason. Now, reason is able to regulate itself. Reason can, therefore, think on its own, i.e. without
the necessary influence of other faculties. Since we possess reason, we can therefore rely on it to think about
things such as how we should lead our individual lives or which goals are worth pursuing. Philosophy, thus,
trains us to become autonomous or self-governing thinkers.  
Second, by making us independent thinkers, philosophy also teaches us to be self-critical. Thinking for oneself
entails being able to criticize one's beliefs and assumptions. Self-criticism is important for one's growth as a
human being. It teaches a person to set aside his assumptions when approaching the reality of things so as to
arrive at an objective interpretation. Being self-critical also makes one critical of public opinion. A critical mind
does not simply take hook, line and sinker what others believe as true. Being critical teaches one how to
understand a belief or a given premise as charitably as possible before subjecting it to criticism. This is
important because only after having criticized others' and one's beliefs can one justifiably argue which beliefs or
principles are worth having. 

Autonomous thinking and self-criticism are two important things that philosophy can teach us. Both reciprocally
contribute to the development of a human being as a rational individual. 

2. What is ethics?
As elaborated in section 1.1. of the previous chapter, ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies the morality
of human actions. Before we engage in an analysis of this definition, let us consider the etymology of the word
ethics. The term ethics comes from the Greek word ἦθος (ethos), which means custom, habit, or a
characteristic way of acting. It refers to any activity humans across cultures set to do.

More technically, ethics is defined as the practical branch of philosophy that studies the morality of human
conduct. Specifically, it is the science that studies the rightness or goodness and wrongness or badness of
human actions. Let us proceed with our analysis. First, ethics is a science. We defined science as a system of
knowledge. Now, as a science, ethics is a complete and systematically arranged body of knowledge (data)
about the morality of human conduct and presents the reasons that show these to be true. 

Moreover, a science may either be speculative or practical. On the one hand, if the data of a science enrich the
mind without directly implying rules or directions for action, it is considered a speculative science. Mathematics
and metaphysics are examples of a speculative science. On the other hand, if the data of a science directly
imply rules or directions for action, then it is a practical science. Ethics is a practical science and as such
presents truth that are to be acted upon. It presents data which directly imply directions for human conduct. 

The Socratic philosophers (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) originally thought of ethics as the science of the good
life or happiness. But the search for the good life also requires the study of how a person should live in order to
attain the good life. Thus, ethics entails the study of human conduct. It is generally concerned, therefore, with
questions about the meaning of the good life and right conduct, and how persons ought to act so as to attain
the good life.

2.1. Branches of Ethics

Ethics has three sub-branches, namely, meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Let us study each of
them.

Meta-ethics is the study of the foundation and meaning of ethical concepts and principles. It seeks to
understand and analyze the nature and origin of these concepts and principles. Meta-ethics raises questions
like "What is free will, and do we have it? Do objective moral facts or values exist or are they social constructs?
Can a person be good without believing in God?"

Normative ethics is the study of moral standards or principles that guide right conduct. It is prescriptive since it
provides rules that moral agents should follow (and not follow). Some questions raised in normative ethics are
the following: Is it right to lie? Is it good to be selfish? Should I keep a promise? 

Applied ethics is the actual application of ethical or moral theories for the purpose of deciding which ethical or
moral actions are appropriate in a given context. In this way, ethical principles are used and applied by different
practical disciplines to resolve ethically problematic situations. This is why we have studies like biomedical
ethics which raises questions like "Is abortion wrong? Is euthanasia or assisted suicide permissible?" There is
also business ethics which asks "What moral responsibilities do corporations have?"; animal ethics which asks
"Do animals have moral rights?"; military ethics which asks "Is war justified?"; computer and information ethics
which studies the ethical implications of information and communication technology.  
2.2. Ethics vs Morality
Since ethics studies the morality of human conduct, it is also called moral philosophy. But although ethics and
morality are used interchangeably at times, there is a significant difference between them. 

Ethics is the theory of right action and the good. It provides principles that explain the morality of human
actions. In other words, it explains why a good action is good and a bad action bad. One could say that ethics
is the science of morals.

Morality (from the Latin mores, meaning norm) pertains particularly to rules or standards of right action and
compels moral agents to follow such rules. It commands moral agents to do something because it is right and
not to do something because it is wrong. One could say that morality is the practice of ethics.

2.3. Is ethics relevant?

Being a practical branch of philosophy, ethics always stands relevant to the world irrespective of time. In
relation to other disciplines, ethics provides principles that may be used to resolve morally problematic
situations. Ethical principles are also important to maintain peaceful relations between people and societies.
These principles serve the general welfare of humanity. 

At a more personal level, ethics enables us to think and evaluate our actions, our motivations for doing them,
and the end we desire to achieve through them. In other words, ethics makes us understand why we do the
things that we do. Usually, most of us would not bother to think about that. But self-evaluation is also an
important means for self-understanding. Ethics, thus, makes us understand ourselves better as persons by
evaluating ourselves and our actions. This is why Socrates considers the ethical way of life as the philosophical
life. Hence, the famous Socratic saying "Know Thyself."

Normative ethical principles (discussed in Part III of this course) can help us resolve or at least mitigate
consequences coming from conflicting moral situations or moral dilemmas (to be discussed at the end of Part
I). These normative principles can serve as frameworks one can use in making moral choices (this is the
intended learning outcome of Part III).   

Moreover, the ethical search for the good life shapes a person's character. In this way, ethics provides a
practical guide for life in terms of doing what is appropriate to the desired goal, that is happiness. Ultimately,
ethics allows us to lead fulfilled lives in our continued effort to do what is right. 

Lesson 1.2: The Moral Experience

1. What constitutes a moral experience?
When you hear on the news that some people are fleeing from their war-torn countries, you start to empathize
with them and perhaps would even advocate for their refuge in your home country. When you read on the local
newspaper that an adult man molested a 10-year old girl, you are immediately enraged by such vileness.
These experiences are proof of your intuitive grasp of what is and is not right. Moreover, it is proof that you are
aware that someone has done something, and that what he has done can be judged morally. This roughly
sketches the idea of a moral experience. 

A moral experience occurs when a particular action is done by a free agent or person, and such action is
capable of being judged as either morally good or morally bad. There are three things, therefore, that constitute
a moral experience. First, there should be a free agent of the action. He is the one doing the act and does the
act from free choice and with voluntariness. Second, there is the act. It refers to the very thing the agent is
doing. Third, there is a rational principle that should explain the morality of the act, that is, whether such act is
morally good or morally bad. 

Consider one of the examples in the paragraph above. When you were enraged upon reading on the
newspaper that a man molested a 10-year old child, you surely were aware who the culprit is. The culprit was
the man who did such vile thing; the agent of the act. This also entails that you were aware of what he did; the
very act done, which is child molestation. In fact, you are able to attribute such act to the man. Thus, you know
that the man did it from free choice and with voluntariness. The fact that you were enraged would entail that
there must be a rational explanation why such act is deemed to be morally unfavorable or bad, regardless of
whether or not the man was ignorant of such explanation. This means that the entire story you read on the
newspaper constitutes a particular moral experience for that man.  

Even the situation you are in right now, that is, at this very moment when you are reading and studying this
lesson, constitutes a moral experience. You, as the agent, decided to read and study freely and voluntarily. You
could have just simply decided not to read and study. But you did. The very thing that you are doing, that is,
reading or studying, constitutes the act. Lastly, no matter what your motivations are for studying, there must be
a rational principle that justifies the goodness of what you are doing.   

2. What is the nature of a human act?

The kind of act that constitutes a moral experience is called a human act. What is a human act and what are its
essential components?

A human act is an act that comes from the deliberate will of an agent. As such, it has a moral character, that is,
it can be judged as either morally good or morally bad. There are three essential components of a human act,
namely,

1. Knowledge
2. Freedom
3. Voluntariness

No human act is done without knowledge. This means that when a human act is done, it is done with full
advertence or awareness. The agent of such act, therefore, is fully aware of what he is doing and the
consequences of doing it. Before acting on it, he must have deliberated it. Deliberation presupposes that
knowledge is present. 

A human act is a free act. This means that the act stems from the free will of the agent. The agent, thus,
exercised his free will upon doing such act. To be able to exercise one's free will presupposes that one was
given options to freely choose from. This entails that the agent was not coerced or compelled to do such act.
There were no external forces that compelled the will of the agent to act in such way. Freedom, therefore, is
present in a human act. 

A human act is a voluntary act. This means that the act was voluntarily or willfully done by the agent. To
voluntarily do something entails that one should be able to give consent to his will to do such thing.
Voluntariness, hence, is present in a human act. Voluntariness essentially follows from both knowledge and
freedom. If either one or both of them is absent, then no voluntariness follows. 

Human acts are imputable to the agent, man himself, which entails his responsibility. Imputability is the quality
of being ascribed or attributed to something or someone. Hence human acts are ascribable or attributable to
man, since he is able to perform them with exercise of free will and deliberation. If it is imputable to him, then
he is responsible. This makes him either praise-worthy or blame-worthy for his actions.

Using the same example, your act of studying this lesson is a human act. As the agent, you did something with
full knowledge of your action. You decided to study with the exercise of your free will. You could have simply
decided not to study. But you did out of your own doing. Since you know what you are doing and you did such
thing out of free choice, your action is one which is voluntarily done. Consequently, your act of studying is
imputable to you. This makes you the author of such act. 

Now, if these three things are absent, then an act cannot be a human act but an act of man. An act of man is
an act that does not come from a deliberate will. Knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness are not present in an
act of man. It occurs as a result of purely animal instincts and sensations. For example, the beating of your
heart, the blinking of your eyes, the rumbling of your stomach, the swaying of your hips when you dance, etc.
are all acts of man. No knowledge, freedom, and voluntariness are present in the instance of such acts. 

In ethics, we are solely concerned with human acts. Particularly, we deal with their morality. Only human acts
have a moral character, that is, the quality of being judged as good or bad. Acts of man do not have this quality.
We could say that they are amoral.

3. What are moral standards?

Imagine dining in an Italian restaurant and ordering spaghetti bolognese. You happen to have with you a pair of
chopsticks and decided to eat your spaghetti using them. A Westerner happens to dine at the table beside you
and notices you doing this. He gives you a smirk and starts to berate you with words. Now, we know that you
have not done anything wrong but why would he do that? These and other similar situations are familiar to us.
You might say people like the Westerner dining beside you are simply too intolerant of others' practices, but the
problem may be deep-seated. It may arise from confusing non-moral standards with moral standards. 

Such confusion may even result to violent situations. For instance, we see religious fundamentalists aiming to
cleanse society of people who do not share their religious beliefs. An understanding of moral standards and
their difference from non-moral ones may help mitigate such kind of violence. It can help mitigate the
unnecessary imposition of one's standards (mistaken to be moral ones when in fact they are non-moral) on
others. 

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions believed to be morally
right or wrong as well as the values placed on what we believe to be morally good or morally bad. They also
promote the good, that is, the welfare or well-being of humans as well as of animals and the environment. As
such, they prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations. 

According to the above definition, moral standards are composed of both norms and values. Norms are general
rules about our actions or behaviors, while values are enduring beliefs or statements about what is good and
bad. For example, the imperative "You should not lie since it is wrong" is a norm, and the belief which says
"Acts of kindness are morally good" is a value. 

Moral standards have five general characteristics. They:

1. deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and the environment; 
2. are not established or changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies;
3. are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards, especially of self-interest;
4. are based on impartial considerations; thus, fair and just;
5. are associated with certain emotions such as shame and guilt and vocabulary such as right and
wrong.

Non-moral standards, on the other hand, are standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or
wrong in a non-moral way. For example, rules of etiquette, standards of the law, aesthetic standards, standards
of religion, etc. are non-moral standards. Most of them pertain to matters of preference. Observance of these
standards does not necessarily make one a moral person; neither does violation of them pose any threat to
human well-being. 

This distinction helps us understand that since moral standards promote the common good, only them can be
universally enforced. So, you cannot universally impose that everyone who eats spaghetti should not use
chopsticks since the practice of using chopsticks for eating follows a non-moral standard (particularly of a
certain dining etiquette) and not a moral one. However, we would not be wrong to prescribe the norm which
says that we should not discriminate people based on their religious beliefs since it is a moral one. 

Lesson 1.3: Moral Dilemmas

1. What is a moral dilemma?
Imagine cruising on a ship with your wife and mother in your dream vacation trip. A storm unfortunately comes
to wreck the ship, sinking it in the middle of the vast ocean. Now, the last life boat can no longer accommodate
more than two lives. Who will you save? 

If you think that the situation above is unresolvable in any way, then you have encountered an example of a
moral dilemma. A moral dilemma is a situation in which the agent is compelled to perform each of two or more
conflicting actions; he can do each of them but cannot do both or all actions. This entails that whatever the
agent does she is bound or condemned to commit a moral failure; "no matter what she does, she will do
something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do)."

However, you might say the situation above is easy to resolve. Letting both your wife and mother in the life boat
and staying in the shipwreck to die in an act of self-sacrifice resolves the conflict. In other words, an available
option overrides the others. Hence, although there is a conflict in the situation, it does not constitute a genuine
moral dilemma. For a situation involving a moral conflict to be a genuine moral dilemma, it must therefore also
require that no option or course of action overrides the others. 

2. Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several distinctions of moral dilemmas. Here, we will discuss three.

First, there is the distinction between epistemic conflicts and ontological conflicts. The former are conflicts that
involve two or more moral requirements with one requirement overriding or taking priority over the others and
that this is not known by the agent. The latter are conflicts that involve two or more moral requirements neither
of which override the others, not because the agent does not know which of them takes priority, but because
neither does. "Genuine moral dilemmas, if there are any, are ontological."  

The next distinction is between "self-imposed moral dilemmas and dilemmas imposed on an agent by the
world, as it were." Self-imposed dilemmas are caused by the agent's wrongdoing. For example, an agent
makes two promises that he knows are conflicting. As a consequence, he cannot fulfill one without failing to
fulfill the other. By contrast, dilemmas imposed on an agent by the world are not caused by the agent's
wrongdoing. The example in the previous page may be considered a case of this type of dilemma. 

Lastly, there is the distinction between obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas. The former involve
conflicts in which all the available courses of action are obligatory, meaning, the agent ought to do each of
them. The latter involve conflicts in which all the available courses of action are forbidden or prohibited. 

Life can be tough and we may encounter moral dilemmas at some point. Although moral dilemmas do not offer
a morally favorable solution, ethics can at least provide us with moral frameworks (discussed in Part III) to help
justify the actions we take in such situations.