1.

MORAL DILEMMAS

The label moral dilemm a is commonly applied to any difficult moral problem.
Several introductory anthologies in ethics have been titled Moral
Dilemmas, suggesting that all of the issues discussed therein are
moral dilemmas, regardless of their structure, simply because they
raise hard moral questions. Many people even talk about moral
dilemmas when it is not clear whether or not morality is relevant at
all.

A moral dilemma is a situation or event that questions the morals of a person in

a temporary situation. The person can return to those morals after the event, but
for the duration of the event they must choose one moral that over rules
another.
First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature

and dynamics of m oral 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 th at will
all have results she does not want.
4. What are Moral Dilemmas?

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. 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.
Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most com mon of them
are categorized into the following: 1 epistemic and ontological
dilemmas, 2 self-impo sed and world-im posed dilemm as, 3 obligation dilemm
as and prohibition dilemmas, and 4 single agent and multi-person dilemmas.

Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations w herein 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 m ore moral requirements conflict with each o ther, 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.

A self-imposed m oral dilemma is c used by the mor l gent’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. A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand,
mean s 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 proh ibition 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.

Finally, in single agent dilemma, the gent “ought, ll 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 Standards vs. Non-Moral Standards

Morality may refer to the standards that a person or a group has about what is right
and wrong, or good and evil. Accordingly, moral
standards are those concerned with or relating to human behavior,
especially the distinction between good and bad (or right and
wrong) behavior.

Moral standards involve the rules people have about the kinds of actions they
believe are morally right and wrong, as well as the values they place on the
kinds of objects they believe are morally good and

moral
morally bad. Some ethicists equate moral standards with values and moral principles .
Non-moral standards refer to rules that are
unrelated to moral or ethical considerations. Either these standards are not
necessarily linked to morality or by nature lack ethical sense. Basic examples of
non-moral standards include rules of etiquette, fashion
standards, rules in games, and various h ouse rules.

Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and legal statutes

(i.e. laws and ordinances) are non-moral principles, though they
can be ethically relevant depending on some factors and contexts.

The following six (6) characteristics of moral standards

further differentiate them from non-moral standards:

a. Moral standards involve serious wrongs or significant benefits.

Moral standards deal with matters which can seriously impact, that
is, injure or benefit human beings. It is not the case with many non-
moral standards. For instance, following or violating some
basketball rules may matter in basketball games but does not
necessarily affect one’s life or wellbeing.

b. Moral standards ought to be preferred to other values.

Moral standards have overriding character or hegemonic authority. If
a moral standard states that a person has the moral obligation to do
something, then he/she is supposed to do that even if it conflicts
with other non-moral standards, and even with self-interest.

Moral standards are not the only rules or principles in society, but
they take precedence over other considerations, including aesthetic,
prudential, and even legal ones. A person may be aesthetically
justified in leaving behind his family in order to devote his life to
painting, but morally, all things considered, he/she probably was not
justified. It may be prudent to lie to save one’s dignity, but it probably
is morally wrong to do so. When a particular law becomes seriously
immoral, it may be people’s moral duty to exercise civil disobedience.

There is a general moral duty to obey the law, but there may come
a time when the injustice of an evil law is unbearable and thus
calls for illegal but moral noncooperation (such as the antebellum
laws calling for citizens to return slaves to their owners).

c. Moral standards are not established by authority figures.

Moral standards are not invented, formed, or generated by

authoritative bodies or persons such as nations’ legislative bodies.

Ideally instead, these values ought to be considered in the process of

making laws. In principle therefore, moral standards cannot be
changed nor nullified by the decisions of particular authoritative
body. One thing about these standards, nonetheless, is that its
validity lies on the soundness or adequacy of the reasons that are
considered to support and justify them.

d. Moral standards have the trait of universalizability.

Simply put, it means that everyone should live up to moral

standards. To be more accurate, however, it entails that moral
principles must apply to all who are in the relevantly similar
situation. If one judges that act A is morally right for a certain person
P, then it is morally right for anybody relevantly similar to P.

This characteristic is exemplified in the Gold Rule, “Do unto others

what you would them do unto you (if you were in their shoes)” and in
the formal Principle of Justice, “It cannot be right for A to treat B in a
manner in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, merely on the
ground that they are two different individuals, and without there
being any difference between the natures or circumstances of the
two which can be stated as a reasonable ground for difference of
treatment.” Universalizability is an extension of the principle of
consistency, that is, one ought to be consistent about one’s value
judgments.

e. Moral standards are based on impartial considerations.

Moral standard does not evaluate standards on the basis of the

interests of a certain person or group, but one that goes beyond
personal interests to a universal standpoint in which each
person’s interests are impartially counted as equal.

Impartiality is usually depicted as being free of bias or prejudice.

Impartiality in morality requires that we give equal and/or adequate
consideration to the interests of all concerned parties.

f. Moral standards are associated with special emotions

and vocabulary.

Prescriptivity indicates the practical or action-guiding nature of

moral standards. These moral standards are generally put forth as
injunction or imperatives (such as, ‘Do not kill,’ ‘Do no unnecessary
harm,’ and ‘Love your neighbor’). These principles are proposed for
use, to advise, and to influence to action. Retroactively, this feature
is used to evaluate behavior, to assign praise and blame, and to
produce feelings of satisfaction or of guilt.
If a person violates a moral standard by telling a lie even to fulfill a
special purpose, it is not surprising if he/she starts feeling guilty or
being ashamed of his behavior afterwards. On the contrary, no much
guilt is felt if one goes against the current fashion trend (e.g. refusing
to wear tattered jeans). (Copyright 2013 by Jensen DG. Mañebog)