What are Moral Dilemmas?

 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.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are
categorized into the following: 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-
imposed and world-imposed dilemmas, 3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition
dilemmas, and 4) single agent and multi-person dilemmas. First Epistemic moral
dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with
each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting moral
requirements takes precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here
does not know which option is morally right or wrong. For instance, I ought to
honor my promise to my son to be home early, but on my way home I saw a sick
old man who needs to be brought to the hospital. Where does my actual duty lie?
We cannot deny that there are conflicting duties (moral requirements) here, but we
need to note that we want a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is an important
purpose being served by my getting home early? How serious is the condition of the
sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which option is morally right in this
situation. However, one option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller
knowledge of the situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas.
Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand, involve situations wherein two or
more moral requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of these conflicting
moral requirements overrides each other. This is not to say that the moral agent
does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other. The point is that
neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral agent
can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements. For instance, a
military doctor is attending to the needs of the wounded soldiers in the middle of
the war. Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a blood transfusion. However,
only one bag of blood is available at the moment. To whom shall the doctor
administer the blood transfusion? For sure, we could not tell whether administering
a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more moral than administering a blood
transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

Second self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings.

For example, David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the
campaign period, he promised the indigenous peoples in his community to protect
their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but at the same time, he seeks financial
support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won the elections, yet he is
faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the indigenous peoples and at
the same time allows the mining corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed, through
his own actions, David created a situation in which it is impossible for him to be
discharged from both obligations. 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.”

Third 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:

The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of

prohibition dilemmas.

Fourth 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 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”.

Moral dilemmas are just some of the introductory topics in the course ethics. For a
discussion on the meaning and types of ethics, please
see http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/. For more on the meaning of
ethics, see https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/
what-is-ethics/.