Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Is Moral Dilemma (Notes)
What Is Moral Dilemma (Notes)
First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and
dynamics of moral dilemmas.
A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more
conflicting options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is
that the person has choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For
example, a town mayor faces a dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin
forest and at the same time allow miners and loggers for economic development in
the town. It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is
not forced to choose between two or more options, then that person is not in a
dilemma. The least that we can say is that that person is just experiencing a
problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most logical thing to do for that person
is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem. When dilemmas
involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical or
moral dilemmas.
Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral
agents” in ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options,
neither of which resolves the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the
following example:
Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely
wrong. Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As
is well known, an ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the
uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy,
the fetus does not develop in the uterus. Now, if this happens, the development of
the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if Lindsay continues with her
pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According to experts, the
best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies killing
the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.
In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting
options, namely, either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the
same time jeopardizes her moral integrity or does not resort to abortion but
endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay is faced with a huge moral
dilemma.
According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for
situations to be considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral
action is obliged to make a decision about which course of action is best. Here, the
moral agent must choose the best option and act accordingly. In the case of the
example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the fetus as the best course of action.
Second, there must be different courses of action to choose from. Hence, as already
pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to choose from for
moral dilemmas to occur. And third, no matter what course of action is taken, some
moral principles are always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there
is no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen
Labastin, in moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something
wrong which implies that she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another
she will fail to do something which she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one
of the possible moral requirements, the person also fails on others.”
A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand, means that certain events in
the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. William Styron’s famous
Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie Zawistowska has been asked to
choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the gas chamber in
Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to
only one of Sophie’s children.
If she does not choose which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their
death. Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is
sent to the Children’s Camp.”
Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is
obligatory, while prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are
forbidden. The famous “Sartre’s Student” is a classic example. It reads: moral
dilemmas. The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example
of prohibition dilemmas.
Finally, in the single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to
do A, ought, all things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”.
In other words, the moral agent is compelled to act on two or more equally the
same moral options but she cannot choose both. For instance, a medical doctor
found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor may experience
tension between the legal requirement to report the case and the desire to respect
confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics acknowledges our obligation to
follow legal requirements and to intervene to protect the vulnerable.
In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…the situation is such that one
agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2, ought to do B, and though each agent
can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and P2 to do B.”
According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as agents X,
Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X
chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on
and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs in situations that involve several
persons like a family, an organization, or a community who is expected to
come up with a consensual decision on a moral issue at hand. A family may be
torn between choosing to terminate or prolong the life of a family member. An
organization may have to choose between complying with the wage law by cutting its
workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying them below the required
minimum wage.
The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also
entails that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a
manner, the moral obligation to do what is right becomes more complicated.
On the one hand, the integrity of the decision ought to be defended on moral
grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent the organization
from breaking apart”.