Moral Dilemma: The Case in Between

Introduction

Every day we are facing moral issues because morality is about our life. This world is not a perfect world and we have to face many moral issues along the way. Some moral issues are easy to handle and others are not easy to handle. Solving moral issues often time involve conflict of moral values like which one is more important than the other. Some moral issues involve issues that cannot be overridden. It is here we have serious and not serious moral dilemma. This short paper will discuss and explain moral dilemma and how we approach moral dilemma. I believe the discussion may raise some serious questions and this paper is only to define what moral dilemma is.    

Moral Dilemma is defined

Moral dilemma is defined as a state of “between two choices” that are equally good and equally bad if you make a choice to choose one of them. In this case if you choose one and not the other one, you still have moral problem and at the same time, not to take action is also your moral failure. You do it, you are wrong, and you do not do it, you are wrong. It is a moral dilemma.  You need to make a decision but you cannot do both.  You do either one or the other and by failing to do it, you fail morally. You really have an uncomfortable situation and face unpleasant choice to make between two moral choices and in this situation you are forced to choose one and violate one.  You wish to do both and it is the right thing to do but you are in a situation that you have to choose one of the two.  

What is common to the two well-known cases is moral conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas. The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), 

Let us take the example of Sophie’s case. Sophie is instructed by a guard in a Nazi concentration camp to decide which one of her two children will be killed, and if she doesn’t decide, both will be killed. Sophie needed to make a decision. She saved one and she sacrificed one and both actions are equally bad because you save one at the expense of the other. Saving the life of one will not make her action is morally acceptable because she has to kill the other one.   No matter which of her children Sophie saves, she will experience enormous guilt for the consequences of that choice. Indeed, if Sophie did not experience such guilt, we would think that there was something morally wrong with her. In these cases, proponents of the argument (for dilemmas) from moral residue must claim that four things are true: (1) when the agents acts, she experiences remorse or guilt; (2) that she experiences these emotions is appropriate and called for; (3) had the agent acted on the other of the conflicting requirements, she would also have experienced remorse or guilt; and (4) in the latter case these emotions would have been equally appropriate and called for [McConnell (1976, 1986). In these situations, then, remorse or guilt will be appropriate no matter what the agent does and these emotions are appropriate only when the agent has done something wrong. Therefore, these situations are genuinely dilemmatic.

If we follow the argument of Socrates and Satre (1957), it will be easier to take action in the case of Sophie. Socrates and Sartre argue that there is always conflicting moral obligation that someone has to take but one value overrides the other. Their argument would indicate that there is always one value higher/better than the other. In this case, one can override the other.  In the case of Sophie, one would say that Sophie should save one of her child and let the other one be killed, since that is the best she can do (Zimmerman (1996). Following their argument one would say that there would not be a serious moral dilemma because there is one best action to take, there is a conflict of moral values facing the moral agent but there is still one more important value than the other to take. However, the case of Sophie is hard moral dilemma.  In this moral dilemma, someone is forced by the circumstance to sacrifice one value for the sacrifice of the other which is both equally important, one is not better than the other, one cannot override the other.  Sophie should kill the other son in order to save the other one or not to take action but the consequence of such action is that both of her children would be killed. In this situation we acknowledge that these are the situations in which an agent does not know what he ought to do. This may be because of factual uncertainty, uncertainty about the consequences, and uncertainty about what principles apply. So for any given case, the mere fact that one does not know which of two (or more) conflicting obligations prevails does not show that none does.

Types of Moral Dilemma

From the argument of Socrates, Sartre and the case of Sophie, we can argue that there are two kinds of moral dilemmas namely solvable and not solvable moral dilemmas.  In the idea of Plato and Socrates, moral conflicts can be resolved by looking at the priority. It involves conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements and the agent does not know which of the conflicting requirements takes precedence in her situation. Everyone concedes that there can be situations where one requirement does take priority over the other with which it conflicts, though at the time action is called for it is difficult for the agent to tell which requirement prevails. Let us take the example of Francis. Francis was on the way home from school. It was still far to reach home and he was hungry and he had no money. He looked around and he found bread on the store along the road. He wanted to request the owner of the store but no body was around. He got the bread and he was able to reach home. In this case, Francis was fully aware that stealing is not good but at the same he was fully aware that he had no choice to survive, except to steal the bread. His life took priority over stealing.  In the case of Sophie, it is hard moral dilemma. There is no better choice. It is the case of conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements, and neither is overridden. This is not simply because the agent does not know which requirement is stronger; neither is. Another example is the case of double effect. A doctor diagnosed a pregnant mother. The doctor found that the mother is in risky situation. The solution was only through the operation but the result would be either the mother or the child would be sacrificed. However, no operation means both will die. The doctor consulted the husband if the operation continues.

The husband has to make the decision. In this situation all actions would be wrong. To take action is wrong and not to take action is wrong. What the husband should do? 

How to Approach Moral Dilemma

Moral dilemma needs to be solved because at the end of the day we have to make a decision because it is one of our moral obligations. We need to figure out what to do and how to do it. Ethical studies present us several approaches to handle moral dilemma and we can mention it here;

1.      Motives/intentions. Moral agent needs to examine his/her motive in carrying the action. The motives must be good.

2.      Means/actions. What are the means/actions in carrying out his motive? In this case, the means must be also good.

3.      Ends. Examine the purpose of actions. The purpose must also be good.

4.      The consequence. Examine the actual outcome. Consequence must be considered because sometime the ends that a person plans may not be the actual outcome.

However in reality the four approaches we have mentioned are subjected to the call of the situation. It is hard to follow the four processes. Some groups emphasize the motives or the intention, like Emmanuel Kant. They argued that as long as the motives are good, it is enough to carry out the action. But other group emphasizes the consequences.  If the consequences bring better result than harm, then the action can be carried out.

Those who emphasizes on the consequences propose the following the procedures:

1.      Analyze the consequence. These groups argue that it is easier to start by looking at the consequences of the actions you’re considering. Assume you have a variety of options. Consider the range of both positive and negative consequences connected with each one. Examine the consequences from different aspects or angles. The question here is which consequence is the lesser evil or which consequence is better? In this case, we take into considerations all those who will be affected by the action.

2.      Analyze The Actions. Now consider all of your options from a completely different perspective. The moral agent should now examine what actions he/she should apply to bring out the good consequences. Concentrate instead strictly on the actions. How do they measure up against moral principles like honesty, fairness, equality, respecting the dignity of others, respecting people' s rights, and recognizing the vulnerability of individuals weaker or less fortunate than others? Do any of the actions that you’re considering "cross the line," in terms of anything from simple decency to an important ethical principle? If there’s a conflict between principles or between the rights of different people involved, is there a way to see one principle as more important than the others? What you’re looking for is the option whose actions are least problematic or less evil. .

3.      Make A Decision. And now, take both parts of your analysis into account and make a decision. This strategy should give you at least some basic steps you can follow. Be ready to accept the outcomes because the consequences or the outcome will not always as you expected.  

Conclusion

At the end deciding moral dilemma will not bring the moral agent free from moral responsibility because he/she has to sacrifice one moral value in the process. Applying the approaches we have discussed, they will not be able to solve all moral dilemmas. They are only to minimize or mitigate the moral burden of the moral agent. The burden and the guilt are still to be shouldered by the agent. And some moral dilemma cannot be solved. This is the reality of life that we have bear with it.  

References

1.       McConnell, Terrance, 1976, “Moral Dilemmas and Requiring the Impossible,” Philosophical Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press

2.       -----1986, “More on Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press

3.       Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1957/1946, “Existentialism is Humanism,” Trans, Philip Mairet, in Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, New York: Meridian.

4.       Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Moral Dilemmas. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/

5.       Zimmerman, Michael J., 1988, An Essay on Moral Responsibility, Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.

6.       –––, 1996, The Concept of Moral Obligation, New York: Cambridge University Press.