Moral Dilemmas What would you do when faced with a difficult moral choice?

Hypothetical and Real Dilemmas In ethics, it is helpful to consider hypothetical and real scenarios of moral dilemmas. A dilemma is a situation where there is no clear “best choice” between two or more alternatives. Dilemmas help us to focus our moral intuitions and test our moral theories.

Are there any real moral dilemmas? There are a number of possible reasons for thinking that moral dilemmas do not really exist: 1.You might think that the ideal moral theory should solve all potential dilemmas. 2.You might be a moral nihilist, and so deny that there is any morally correct choice. 3.You might be a relativist, and so think that whatever option you prefer is the right option for you.

There are genuine moral dilemmas only if… Some things are morally better than others. It is unclear which choice is the morally best one.

Is this a moral dilemma? Why or why not?

If morals are a matter of taste, then moral dilemmas are no different than the choice between strawberry or chocolate. Given this, we can go one of the following directions: 1.Maintain that moral dilemmas amount to confusions over personal preference, but insist that they are not for this reason trivial. 2.Appeal to some principles of agreement about moral preferences that go beyond the purely subjective dilemma over strawberry or chocolate. 3.Give up on the idea that morals are a matter of personal preference.

The “Trolley Problem” Imagine that you are an employee working for the train company as a switch operator. One day you see a train speeding down the track, its driver is in obvious distress. You realize that the train has had a malfunction and is unable to stop. You look ahead of the train and see five workers working on the track. If you allow the train to go ahead, it will surely kill all five. However, you could divert the train by switching tracks. On the alternate track, there is one worker, working alone. If you switch the train, you cause the death of one worker; if you do nothing, five will die. What will you do?

Sophie’s choice A classic, real-life example is provided by the story of Sophie’s choice (based on a true story): In this story, Sophie is interned at a Nazi concentration camp. She has two young children. One day, she is confronted by a Nazi soldier who offers her the following choice: He says, “I am going to shoot one or both of your children. You tell me which one to shoot, or I will shoot them both.” What do you do?

Should you always tell the truth? A murderer at the door is looking for your friend who is hiding in your house. Your co-worker is cheating on her time-sheet. You witness a parking-lot accident.

Are there laws it is acceptable to break? Underground railroad. A poor man stealing medicine for his dying wife. Tax laws. Speed Limits. 21 year-old drinking age. Recreational drug use.

Should you take this job? You are offered a job that will require you to do things that you find morally questionable. – If you don’t take it, someone else will. – Maybe you can work for good from the inside. – With the money you can take care of your family and even give back to charities.

Sartre’s soldier’s dilemma Jean-Paul Sartre, in his Existentialism and Human Emotions, tells the story of a young student of his during World War II who was faced with a difficult dilemma. – The young man’s father was not on good terms with his mother and was inclined to be a German collaborator. – The young man’s brother had been killed in the German offensive and the young man wanted to avenge his death. – His mother lived alone with him and was grief stricken by the treachery of her husband and the death of her oldest son. The young man is faced with the following decision: do I stay with my mother (to comfort and care for her) or go fight in the war (to avenge the death of my brother and fight on behalf of my nation).

Sartre’s analysis Sartre reasons that there are no moral principles that can ultimately guide these decisions. The dilemma exists because of a genuine conflict in moral principles. It seems that the only way to determine the right choice is to follow your values, preferences, or beliefs. But how do you know what you value, prefer, or believe? Sartre says: “The only way to determine the value of this affection is, precisely, to perform an act which confirms or defines it. But, since I require this affection to justify my act, I find myself caught in a vicious circle.” (27) Later on, he explains: “Man makes himself. He isn’t ready made at the start. In choosing his ethics, he makes himself, and force of circumstances is such that he cannot abstain from choosing one.” (43)

Can you think of any moral dilemmas you encounter in everyday life?

How do you resolve a moral dilemma? What sorts of duties, preferences, or values do you appeal to? Is it always a matter of the consequences or results? Does it matter which choice is more virtuous? Is that always the same thing as the one that produces the best consequences? Are there any actions that have intrinsic value – Actions with intrinsic value should be followed above others that produce the same results. – There may even be some actions that are either so intrinsically good or so intrinsically bad that they should or should not be done at all cost. As with Sartre, we might conclude that moral principles do not justify the action, but the action justifies the principles.

Metaethical questions: What is good? How do we determine which kinds of actions are better than others? Are there any objective moral goods (i.e., things that are good in general)? Does the good derive from the result/goal, or does it derive from the nature of the action? Should we look for our moral systems to resolve moral dilemmas or are dilemmas a necessary part of ethics?