1.
Week 2: Dilemmas
Targeted Objectives
The learners will be able to:
… Differentiate the levels of moral dilemma.
… Identify the minimum requirements of morality.
… Evaluate the soundness and validity of the arguments in a moral dilemma.
… Construct arguments and counter-arguments in the higher level of moral dilemmas.
Definition
You are at your best friend's wedding just an hour before the ceremony is to start. Earlier that day, you came across definitive proof that
your best friend's spouse-to-be is having an affair with the best man/maid of honor, and you catch them sneaking out of a room together
looking disheveled. If you tell your friend about the affair, their day will be ruined, but you don't want them to marry a cheater. What
do you do? (Source: Listverse)
There are certain occasions that we are trapped in a situation in which there is a choice to be made between two or more options, neither
of which resolves the situation in an ethically acceptable fashion. Just like the case above, we are trap between two choices that are
equally good and equally evil. It is not about our preference since we have to sacrifice one over the other. We are in a perplexing situation
where the choices we have are between equally unsatisfactory alternatives. In this case, we are in a dilemma.
What is normal to the two surely understood cases is a struggle. For each situation, an actor sees himself/herself as having moral
motivations to do every one of two choices, however doing the two actions isn't conceivable. Ethicists have called circumstances like
these ethical difficulties or we called moral dilemmas. The vital highlights of an ethical quandary are these: the agent is required to do
every one of (at least two) actions; the agent can do every one of the actions, yet the actor can't do both (or all) of the choices. The agent
along these lines appears sentenced to moral disappointment; regardless of what she does, she will accomplish something incorrectly
(or neglect to accomplish something that she should do).
The Platonic case strikes numerous as too simple to be described as a certified good situation. For the agent's answer, all things
considered, is clear; it is more critical to shield individuals from hurt than to restore an acquired weapon. What's more, regardless, the
acquired thing can be returned later, when the proprietor never again represents a danger to others. Accordingly, for this situation, we
can state that the prerequisite to shield others from genuine harm abrogates the necessity to reimburse one's obligations by restoring an
acquired thing when its proprietor so requests. When one of the clashing necessities supersedes the other, we don't have a qualified
moral dilemma. So notwithstanding the highlights specified above, keeping in mind the end goal to have a bona fide moral difficulty it
should likewise be valid that neither of the clashing prerequisites is superseded.
Sometimes called ethical paradoxes, these dilemmas invoke an attempt to refute an ethical system or moral code, or to improve it so as
to resolve the paradox.
Conditions of a Dilemma
Before a situation can be called a dilemma, specifically ethical dilemma, there are three conditions to be satisfied. The first one is when
the agent, the decision-maker and the doer of the action, has to make the best decision. In making decisions, there are significant value
conflicts among different interests. The value of family may be in conflict with the value of religion in making a choice. The second is
that alternatives are equally admissible. They have their own valid reasons why the agent should embrace them. Spending money for
the ailing parent is just acting and likewise also spending it with the education of his children. The situation demands a decision from
the agent which more justifiable act to be made. And the third is that the decision is made will have consequences on the stakeholders
whether favorable or not. It is like you have your mother on your one hand and your lover on the other hand. You have to let go one to
save the other. Whatever decision you make, it has consequences not only you but also to both recipients of the action to be executed.
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

2.
not know which option is morally right or wrong. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.” 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. 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”.
Source: https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/10/moral-dilemmas/
Levels of Dilemma
The dilemma at the personal level is when one, on the subjective level, is confronted with choices that are equally good and bad. The
agent choice does not affect any organization but only between individuals.
Since organizations are controlled by individuals, the moral guidelines of people in the business are a vital thought. People may well
have an altogether different arrangement of moral benchmarks from their boss and this can prompt strains. Factors, for example, peer
weight, individual money related position, and financial status all may impact individual moral models. Administrators and
entrepreneurs ought to know about this to oversee potential clashes.
An organizational dilemma exists within an organization or a particular sector. It refers to a problem of reconciling inconsistencies
between individual needs and aspirations on the one hand, and the collective purpose of the organization on the other.
At an organization or corporate level, moral measures are inserted in the strategies and techniques of the organization and shape an
essential establishment on which business system is manufactured. These approaches get from the impacts felt at large scale level and
thusly help a business to react to changing weights in the best way. There can be a hole between the organization strategy on moral
principles and the lead of those responsible for maintaining the business, particularly on the off chance that they are not the immediate
proprietors, which can display a moral test for a few employees.
Systematic/Structural Dilemma refers to the ongoing search for a satisfactory system. Managers rarely face well-defined problems with
clear-cut solutions, instead, they confront enduring dilemmas like tradeoffs without easy answers.
At a full-scale level, ethics are characterized and impacted by the more extensive working condition in which the organization exists.
Factors, for example, political weights, monetary conditions, societal demeanors to specific organizations, and even business control
can impact an organization's working gauges and approaches. Entrepreneurs and supervisors must know about how these weights
influence tasks and connections, and how they may affect on business sectors locally, broadly and universally.
Morality Defined
Moral Philosophy is an attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of morality and what it requires of us, “how we
ought to live and why”.

3.
The Role of Reason
Kant’s system of ethics endeavors to get the moral law from reason. Unethical behavior, as indicated by Kant, includes inconsistency,
and is in this way irrational.
This component of Kantian morals has two vital inferences.
The first implication of Kant's utilization of reason to ground morality is that it gives a reaction to the self-seeker. Vanity holds that we
should just to keep our best interests in mind. Most thinkers dismiss selfishness, however, it is famously hard to give a sufficient defense
for doing as such. Kant's theory gives such a legitimization: pride is unreasonable, thus can be panned on that ground.
The second implication of Kant's utilization of reason to ground morality is that it clarifies the extent of morality. Rationality, for Kant,
is conclusive of human nature; it is common among individuals. Every single person, at that point, since it has the ability to be rational,
should be moral. Other creatures, without this rational aptitude, are not subject to the moral law, and subsequently can't be weighed by
it.
Reason is a capacity that is utilized by man in managing issues.
Source: http://moralphilosophy.info/normative-ethics/deontology/kantian-ethics/the-role-of-reason/
Moral Reasoning, therefore, is a process by which one thinks about the moral dilemma in ways that:
 identify (as comprehensively as possible) the morally relevant aspects of the situation;
 weigh the significance of the morally relevant aspects, giving due importance to the views of the persons’ concerned of what
constitutes benefit and harm;
 identify (as comprehensively as possible) all the possible actions that could be pursued and their most likely consequences;
and
 consider all of the above elements and come to a decision about which action is
 reasoned to be the most ethically justified.
On Impartiality
Each individual’s interests are equally important. Therefore, each must acknowledge that other person’s welfare is equally important
as our own. Impartiality entails a proscription against arbitrariness in dealing with people.
A conscientious moral agent is someone who is concerned impartially with the interest of everyone affected by what he or she does.
Being impartial is to carefully sift facts and examines their implications. The agent also accepts principles of conduct only after
scrutinizing them to make sure they are sound; and he/she is willing to listen to reason even when it means that prior convictions may
have been revised, and who finally, is willing to act on the results of this deliberation.”
Source: James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, page 14.
In simply putting the statements above, the nature of morality implies two main points:
 that moral judgment must be backed up by good reasons;
 morality requires the impartial consideration of each individual’s interest.