Discussion

What are 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.
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.
A 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. 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:
The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic
example of prohibition dilemmas.
Finally, in 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”.
References
http://kohlbergpsych.weebly.com/the-heinz-dilemma.html
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/