What is Ethical Dilemma?

• A dilemma is a situation in which people feel caught between ‘right

against right’.
• Expressing this in terms of principles, we can say that people
experience a dilemma when they consider that:
• two or more ethical principles are relevant to their situation
• the principles make conflicting demands upon them.
Example: Plato’s man who promised to return an axe to someone who
has since become a homicidal maniac experiences a dilemma. He sees
two principles as relevant – keeping promises and preventing harm –
but which should he follow?
Seeing Dilemmas as Irresolvable

• Some people regard dilemmas as irresolvable because they think all

ethical principles are absolute--According to this view all the truly
sensitive person can do is agonize over the irresolvability

• There is, however, a practical and professional reason why this view
should not be taken by members of professions.
When ethical demands compete in a professional situation it is part of their job
to use their expertise and skills – often in conjunction with clients – to work out
a way forward. They cannot just wring their hands in agony: they have an
obligation to do something and find ways forward.
Ways of addressing dilemmas
1. Interpreting principles
Consider how the relevant principles should be interpreted in the particular
situation, since principles are general in nature and allow for flexibility in their
interpretation

2. Seeking a compromise
This involves looking for a course of action that goes as far as it can towards
meeting the demands of all the principles, even though it may not be fully in
accord with any one of them
3. Giving priority to principles according to circumstances

• When it is not possible to find a way forward by interpreting the principles in the ethical
framework or by finding a compromise between them, a decision must be made to give
priority to one, or to some, over the others.

• This approach gives professionals – whether working individually or in a team – the

freedom to take account of whatever factors in a situation they consider ethically relevant,
such as clients’ interests, wishes and expectations, legislation, technical matters, likely
consequences of various options, professional objectives, and so on, and the freedom to
judge the relative importance of their ethical obligations in the light of all these

• Despite the flexibility of this approach, regarding all principles as prima facie is not an
‘anything goes’ approach. If professionals in a particular situation decide to give priority to
one principle over another, they should still comply with the other principles as far as
possible.
Ethically appraising a situation
How professionals should approach a situation

1. Prior to thinking of ethical aspects, ascertain whether there are any legal or professional
requirements that prescribe what should be done. If there is none, or if requirements allow some
freedom of action, ethically appraise the situation as follows.
2. Consider which of the four ethical principles are relevant to the situation.
3. Note the ways in which any professional guidelines or accepted rules of thumb, or you as an
individual, normally interpret and apply these principles in relation to your professional task.
4. Consider whether these interpretations and applications should be varied in relation to your
particular situation.
5. If the demands of the principles conflict when related in the way you think appropriate to your
task and situation, consider: whether there is an acceptable compromise that meets as many of
the demands as possible if not, what is the relative importance of the demands in the situation.
6. Consider how you can minimise any infringement of any principles.
7. Act accordingly
Ethical Thinking in the Professions
• to treat individuals justly and Fairly
• to respect people’s Autonomy
• to act with Integrity
• to seek the best Results

Making ethical decisions

• By applying principles
• By relating convictions and principles
ethical decision-making process

• Determine the facts of the situation. Making an honest effort to

understand the situation, to distinguish facts from mere opinion, is
essential. Perceptual differences surrounding how individuals experience
and understand situations can explain many ethical disagreements.
• Identifying the ethical issues involved is the next step in making
responsible decisions
• identify and to consider all of the people affected by a decision, the
people often called stakeholders. “Stakeholders,” in this general sense,
include all of the groups and/or individuals affected by a decision, policy
or operation of a fi rm or individual
• Once we have examined the facts, identified the ethical issues involved, and
identified the stakeholders, we need to consider the available alternatives.
Creativity in identifying options—also called “moral imagination” —is one
element that distinguishes good people who make ethically responsible
decisions from good people who do not.
• Consider, the case of discovering a lost iPod. One person might decide to keep
it because she judges that the chances of discovering the true owner are slim
and that, if she does not keep it, the next person to discover it will make that
decision. Another person might be able to think of some alternatives beyond
those choices. For example, she could return early for the next class to see
who is sitting at the desk, or she could fi nd out who teaches the previous class
and ask that teacher for help in identifying the owner. Moral imagination might
be something as simple as checking in a lost and found department. How
would the school community be changed if students went out of their way to
return lost items rather than keeping them for their own use?
• The next step in the decision-making process is to compare and weigh
the alternatives— create a mental spreadsheet that evaluates the
impact of each alternative you have devised on each stakeholder you
defined. Perhaps the most helpful way to accomplish this task is to try
to place oneself in the other person’s position, as discussed above.
• A critical element of this evaluation will be the consideration of ways
to mitigate, minimize, or compensate for any possible harmful
consequences or to increase and promote beneficial consequences.
• One additional factor in comparing and weighing alternatives requires
consideration of the effects of a decision on one’s own integrity,
virtue, and character.
• Such questions truly go to the heart of ethical business leadership. An
honest person might not even think about retaining the iPod; keeping
it for oneself is simply not an option for such a person.
• Once you have explored the above variables, it is time to make a
decision. We have the ability as humans to learn from our
experiences. That ability creates a responsibility to then evaluate the
implications of our decisions, to monitor and learn from the
outcomes, and to modify our actions accordingly when faced with
similar challenges in the future.
 Challenges in Ethical Decision
Making Process
In business contexts, it can be easy to become so involved in the financial aspects of
decisions that one loses sight of the ethical aspects. Some writers have called this inability
to recognize ethical issues normative myopia, or shortsightedness about values.
Normative myopia does not occur only in business.

Bazerman and Chugh similarly warn of inattentional blindness, which they suggest results
from focusing on failures.
The problem is that when we focus on the wrong thing, or fail to focus, Bazerman and
Chugh warn that we may fail to see key information that will lead us to success or prevent
unethical behavior; we may fail to use the information because we do not know it is
relevant; or we may be aware, but we might fail to contribute it to the group

Bazerman and Chugh identify a third means by which ethical issues might go unnoticed:
change blindness. This omission occurs when decision makers fail to notice gradual
changes over time.
• Sometimes that ignorance can be almost willful and intentional. After you
discover a lost iPod, you might rationalize to yourself that no one will ever
know, no one is really going to be hurt, an owner who is so careless deserves to
lose the iPod. You might try to justify the decision by telling yourself that you
are only doing what anyone else would do in this circumstance. You might even
choose not to think about it and try to put any guilty feelings out of your mind.

• Another cognitive barrier is that we sometimes only consider limited

alternatives. When faced with a situation that suggests two clear alternative
resolutions, we often consider only those two clear paths, missing the fact that
other alternatives might be possible. Upon discovering a lost iPod, you might
conclude that if you do not take it, someone else will. Because the original
owner will lose out in both cases, it is better that you benefi t from the loss than
if someone else benefi ts. Responsible decision making would require that we
discipline ourselves to explore additional methods of resolution.
• We also generally feel most comfortable with simplified decision rules.
Having a simple rule to follow can be reassuring to many decision makers.
In the iPod case, “finders keepers, losers weepers” might be an attractive
rule to follow.

• We also often select the alternative that satisfies minimum decision

criteria, otherwise known as “satisficing.” We select the option that
suffices, the one that people can live with, even if it might not be the
best. Imagine a committee at work that needs to make a decision. They
spend hours arriving at a result and fi nally reach agreement. At that point
it is unlikely that someone will stand up and say, “Whoa, wait a minute,
let’s spend another couple of hours and fi gure out a better answer!” The
very fact that a decision was reached by consensus can convince
everyone involved that is must be the most reasonable decision.
• Other stumbling blocks are less intellectual or cognitive than they are
a question of motivation and willpower. As author John Grisham
explained in his book Rainmaker, “Every (lawyer), at least once in
every case, feels himself crossing a line he doesn’t really mean to
cross. It just happens.” Sometimes it is simply easier to do the wrong
thing.