genuine moral dilemma

Genuine moral dilemma is a situation such that no matter what an agent does, she does something that is morally wrong, or he fails to do something that is morally right. What is common is 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 agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong

The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: 1 the agent is required to do one of two (or more) actions; 2 the agent can do each of the actions; but 3 the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions.4 no moral requirement should override the other. 5 the choice confronting an agent must be morally significant.

When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we do not have a genuine moral dilemma. Uncertainty about what to do in a case of a moral dilemma is simply the result of uncertainty about the consequences. An adequate moral theory should not allow for the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas.

An example of a dilemma that is not genuine is a situation where one borrows a weapon from a friend and promises to bring it back. As at the time he wants to bring the weapon back, the friend has lost his mind. The person has to make a choice between keeping his promise and saving the lives of people. This is not a genuine moral dilemma because one of the choices prevails over the other; it is more important to save the life of people, the weapon can be return later when the friend goes back to his normal senses.

An example of a genuine moral dilemma is this: Sophie and her two children are at a Nazi concentration camp. A guard confronts Sophie and tells her that one of her children will be allowed to live and one will be killed. But it is Sophie who must decide which child will be killed. Sophie can prevent the death of either of her children, but only by condemning the other to be killed. The guard makes the situation even more excruciating by informing Sophie that if she chooses neither, then both will be killed. With this added factor, Sophie has a morally compelling reason to choose one of her children. But for each child, Sophie has an apparently equally strong reason to save him or her. No matter which of her children Sophie saves, she will experience enormous guilt for the consequences of that choice. Thus the same moral precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Some have called such cases symmetrical

Types of moral conflicts/dilemma   

Self-imposed moral dilemmas and dilemmas imposed on an agent by the world, as it were. Conflicts of the former sort arise because of the agent’s own wrongdoing. If an agent made two promises that conflicts each other, then through his own actions he created a situation in which it is not possible for him to discharge both of his requirements. Dilemmas imposed on the agent by the world, by contrast, do not arise because of the agent’s wrongdoing. An example is the case of Sophie’s choice.

One distinction is between epistemic conflicts and ontological conflicts. The former involve conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements and the agent does not know which of the conflicting requirements takes precedence in her situation. The latter are 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. Genuine moral dilemmas, if there are any, are ontological.

At the intuitive level, the existence of moral dilemmas suggests some sort of inconsistency. An agent caught in a genuine dilemma is required to do one of two acts but cannot do both. And since he cannot do both, not doing one is a condition for doing the other. Thus, it seems that the same act is both required and forbidden.

Conclusion

Debates about moral dilemmas have been extensive during the last four decades. These debates go to the heart of moral theory. Moral dilemma involves conflicts between moral requirements. Subscribing to the possibility of a genuine moral dilemma may lead to a conclusion that our moral concepts are not reasonable and incoherent. It is apparent that the claim of a genuine moral dilemma conflicts with some of our foundational assumptions about morality. The philosophical discussion of moral dilemma challenges us to revisit and scrutinize our beliefs regarding the contents of our moral concepts and the relationship among them