Moral dilemmas

What is a moral dilemma?

Broadly speaking, a moral dilemma is a situation in which we (moral agents) have to choose between at least two possible courses of action.

In order clarify what is a moral dilemma, it may be useful to start sorting out situations that are not moral dilemmas:

• Not every situation in which we have to choose is a moral dilemma. In fact, in most everyday choice situations, morality is not involved at all. Think in choosing the next song or movie you are going to enjoy. Or think of choosing your future profession or your future house. Most likely, these choices do not involve morality but other factors such as personal preferences, skills, economic prospects, etc.

• Not every choice situation involving morality is a moral dilemma. Consider this situation: I find a wallet in a lonely street while walking alone, nobody saw me picking it up. When I open it, there is one hundred euros in it and the ID card and phone number of its owner. I have at least three choices in front of me:

Weakness of the moral will

In situations like this we test the strength of our moral convictions: Should we act according to our moral convictions or should we abandon them in favor of other (typically inmoral) considerations? We are tempted to renounce to our moral values because the alternative course of action report us benefits. In situations like these, the decision can be difficult and we may agonize between doing what we think is morally right and what is inmoral but benefits us.

Situations like this do not qualify as moral dilemmas because we have no moral doubts about what we should do. We have no doubts about which is the morally right decision. Our difficulty is to have the moral strength to choose the morally right alternative. Selfish preferences, fears, personal or social pressures are among the most common motives for not choosing the right alternative.

But in a proper moral dilemma, we have moral doubts about which is the right choice. We are committed to do the right thing, but all the alternatives have moral implications and, at least in a first analysis, we do not know which one is the best moral alternative.

Moral problems

Moral dilemmas arise moral doubts: we do not know what is the right thing to do. But not every morally dubious situation is a moral dilemma. In order to qualify as a proper moral dilemma, the situation requires a concrete solution: we are compelled to choose a definite course of action. The situation is sufficiently detailed so as to require from us a solution, in many cases it requires to choose among a few alternatives, typically only two alternatives.

But many situations are not so clearly defined though they include conflicting moral values. Consider the following two examples:

Both (1) and (2) arise moral doubts: there are moral values in conflict. But (1) is a concrete situation and Mary has to make her mind: she has to hire one of them, not both of them, and has to choose between two people. We may be required to take her place and propose a solution to her moral dilemma.

On the other hand, (2) is a very broad question, with many ramifications and different situations involving different groups of people and historical antecedents. We can't be asked to give a concrete solution to this moral problem. We may provide advice and general considerations, but not a concrete solution simply because not a concrete question has been asked.

There is not a clear frontier between moral dilemmas and moral problems. Instead of thinking in terms of a binary opposition, it is more fruitful to picture dilemmas and problems as a continuous spectrum:

Detailed (closed) dilemmas <------ Imprecise (open) dilemmas -----> Moral problems

On the left side we have very detailed dilemmas with a closed, well-defined set of alternative solutions. On the right side we have general moral problems. And in between we have not so detailed dilemmas that require a concrete solution that may not be one of the alternatives initially provided: we may think of novel solutions, or solutions that attempt to find a compromise between the initial alternatives.

As we add details and constraints to a morally problematic situation, we create a clearly defined moral dilemma. When we remove details from a dilemma, we transform it into a moral problem.

Definition and types of moral dilemmas

Properly speaking, a moral dilemma is a situation in which we face a choice between at least two alternatives, neither of which is morally satisfactory to us. We find reasons in favor but also against each of them. All alternatives have in their favor some of our moral ideas about what is good and right, but we also find moral objections in each option. We have moral doubts about which is the best moral choice.

There are moral dilemmas of various types:

• Dilemma between two alternatives both of them good, have good consequences, but we can only choose one of them, which one to choose? which one is the best? For example, a friend and an unknown person both ask us for help, but for reasons of time, money or for any other reason we can only help one of the two. Which one to help? Should we favor our friend? Should we be impartial and help those who need it most? And in case of not being able to compare the needs of the friend and the unknown person. Would it be correct to draw lots?

• Dilemma between doing something bad in the short term, but that most probably have good consequences in the furture. Or alternatively, doing something good now but that probably has bad future consequences. Does the initial evil outweigh the later good? Does the initial good outweigh the future evil? For example, we need a car to quickly transport an injured person to the hospital, but the only car available is that of our neighbor, who is not at home. Is it allowed in this situation to take the car without permission? If we don't have a driver's license yet but we can drive, can we take the car and take the injured person to the hospital? Or is it better to wait for help to arrive, even though it may be too late?

• Dilemma between two evils, which is the lesser evil? For example, the use of a weapon of mass destruction to ensure the end of a war. Is it allowed to use it in this case? US President Harry Truman was faced with the moral dilemma of using the atomic bomb and ending World War II, or not using it and prolonging the war until the enemy was defeated by conventional means.

Because moral values have their opposites (equality vs. inequality, justice vs. injustice, etc.) most moral dilemmas can be presented as conflicts between two goods or between two evils. Depending on the case, it may be better to present it in one way or the other.

Analysing a moral dilemma

Although we may never encounter ourselves in an actual moral dilemma, it is an interesting ethical exercise to analyse hypothetical moral dilemmas. When analysing a moral dilemma, it is important to accept the conditions described in the situation. Because moral dilemmas ask for choosing among alternatives neither of which we find totally acceptable, it is natural trying to escape from the dilemma:

• When choosing between to good options, we escape trying to choose both.

• Or when having to choose between to evils, we escape trying not to choose either.

These we may call these false solutions to a moral dilemma. They are false because they escape from the dilema by changing the situation in an esential way and, as a result, the situation is not a dilemma anymore. When we do that, the dilema is transformed radically, and then:

• One of the alternatives is now the obvious moral choice,

• Or all alternatives can be chosen simultaneously,

• Or perhaps there is no need to choose, maybe because other person will chose instead of us.

On the other hand, it is ok when analyzing a moral dilemma:

• to ask for more information about the details of the situation,

• to discuss the motives, beliefs and values of the people involved,

• to elaborate on the consequences of each alternative and so on.

In addition of doing all these things, a key part of analyzing a moral dilemma is identifying the moral values at play. Why is it morally good to choose each alternative? Or if all alternatives are wrong, what is wrong in each alternative? Going beyond the facts of the situation, we have to clarify the moral elements present in the dilemma.

Example

Let's put into practice those recommendations analyzing a moral dilemma. It is inspired in a classical dilemma (Heinz dilemma) but modifying some key aspects.

In order to analyze this dilemma, we should first be sufficiently informed of the situation details. Is there any detail you want to know in addition to the provided information? You may ask for more information, but you must not change the situation in ways that eliminate Heinz's dilemma. For instance, you can't add a second pharmacist that could open the pharmacy, or another pharmacy close by. The key elements are that Susan may die soon unless she receives an insuline injection that can only be obtained breaking into a closed pharmacy.

We can frame the situation as a dilemma between two morally bad outcomes:

• a person dies when it could be saved.

• a person breaks the law and may be arrested or worse.

We could also present the situation as a dilemma between to morally good (but incompatible) outcomes:

• saving a person's life

• respecting the law

The moral values at play are clear: on the one hand, the value of a human life, and on the other the value of respecting the law. Heinz has to choose between them, there are no other alternatives available and the clock is ticking.

Solving a moral dilemma

After analyzing a dilemma, we may try to propose a solution. From the point of view of the solution, dilemmas can be classified as:

• Closed dilemmas: the solution to the dilema must be one of the alternatives initially proposed in the situation. We are not allowed to change any details of the alternatives proposed and have to choose one of them.

• Open dilemmas: we are allowed to propose a solution different from the ones initially presented. Depending on the concrete details of the dilema, this new solution may be an intermediate or compromise solution between the options initially proposed. Or perhaps we figure out a completely new solution not envisaged initially. Whatever the case, the solution must respect the key ingredients of the dilemma, it must not be a false solution.

What counts as a solution to a moral dilemma? A solution must include these two elements:

1. The solution must propose a definite course of action. In closed dilemas, we have to choose one among the available alternatives as they are presented in the dilema. In open dilemmas, we are allowed to propose a new alternative as long as it is not a false solution.

2. The election must be reasoned. We must provide reasons for our election or for our new alternative if we are allowed to propose one or if we find one.

What kind of reasons can we provide?

• We can weight the relative importance of the moral values at play: maybe we find that one of the values is more important than the rest.

• We can weight the probabilities of each result. In many moral dilemmas, there is a certain degree of uncertainty about the result. We can prefer a less desirable but more certain result instead of a theoretically more desirable result but more uncertain.

• We can evaluate the consequences of each alternatives. In uncertain conditions and unless other reasons apply, we should avoid irreversible consequences and opt for reversible results.

• We can consider the preferences of the people affected by the different alternatives. As a general rule, we should respect the preferences as long as we know them and they do not interfere with or harm other people.

• We can support our election on an ethical theory that has proven correct in other cases, such as deontologism (Kant's theory) or utilitarianism.

All or some of these considerations can be provided as reasons supporting our choice. Depending of how we weight the different factors, we can arrive at different but equally reasonable solutions.

Example

Let's apply those considerations to the solution of our previously analyzed dilemma. It is a closed dilemma, Heinz has to choose between:

• saving the life of Susan by breaking the law and risking an arrest by the police.

• respecting the law and risking the life of Susan, who may die in the following hours.

In order to arrive at a solution, we can revise each of the reasons previously enumerated:

• The dilemma pits two moral values against each other: the value of human life and the value of respecting the law. We should consider that the law we are asked to respect is the one that protects private property (a pharmacy in our case). But helping a person in distress is also a legal obligation. So, the question is which law should we respect in this situation. And it is reasonable that protecting human life takes precedence over protecting private property.

• Regarding the probabilities of each result, we may assume that both outcomes are quite probable. To the best knowledge of Susan and Heinz, the diabetic coma leads to death if not treated promptly. On the other hand, breaking into the pharmacy automatically breaks the law.

• As for the reversibility of the consequences, there are marked differences between each outcome: dead is irreversible but property damages can be compensated.

• Susan clearly prefers to live; she took precautions in that direction but her plans were accidentally twarthed. On the other hand, we do not know the preferences of the pharmacist: possibly he would have given permission to break into the pharmacy in order to save Susan's life.

• And finally, we can apply utilitarianism and ask ourselves which alternative brings more happiness to most people affected by the decision. It is reasonable to conclude that saving Susan is the winning alternative.

Therefore, the alternative of saving Susan's life trumps the alternative of respecting private property. We can provide at least four reasons in favor of our election: a) human life is more valuable than private property, b) dead is irreversible but private property can be restored, c) the preferences of the pharmacist may coincide with Susan's and d) there is less harm in the first alternative and that is a key factor according to utilitarianism.

Exercises

Each of the following videos presents a moral dilemma. We can approach them in three steps:

1. Describe the dilemma: situation, people involved and the alternatives proposed. Focus on the key ingredients that make the situation a dilema.

2. Is it a dilemma between two goods? Or between two evils? Is it a closed or an open dilemma? Which moral values are at play?

3. What is your solution? Take into account if it is a closed or an open dilemma. Provide reasons along the following lines:

   • Is one moral value more important than the other?

   • Are the consequences equally probable? Are they reversible or irreversible?

   • What do the people involved prefer?

   • Does a moral theory support your solution?