The Conception of Moral Dilemmas - Essay Example

Moral Dilemma Introduction Social-ethical dilemmas have in the recent years engrossed a great deal of interestin behavioural sciences. The terminologies morals and ethics can be used interchangeably. In ethics, most of the discussions revolve around what is good or bad, right or wrong, in addition to duties and obligations (Williams, 4). A moral dilemma can be delineated as a rational situation in which an individual is faced with different options and where a decision is made at the expense of another. More often than not, the outcome of either of the alternatives is either undesirable or partially unethical. Individuals have little or no time to make weight sides and make decisions accurately. This makes it even trickier considering that each of the options has its own results. In addition, none of the options can be referred to as illegal but rather unethical. Such dilemmas range from very simple acts such as completing an assignment or copying it from the internet to very complex situations that may involve loss of life Everyone is forced by events to make preferences or decisions on a daily basis. More often than not, such conditions may be uncomfortable or embarrassing and need complicating judgement. Such conditions usually necessitate answering the question; what is the ethically better choice? Such situations come about there being no situation that is wholly ethical in itself. Through ethical interpretation, individuals consider the possible implications and consequences of actions in response to principles or ethical dilemmas. Multiple moralities are a major issue in moral dilemmas especially because distinct to the legislature, morals are not clearly stipulated and often change depending on issues like religion and location. There are some rare cases of multiple moralities whereby individuals may be faced by ethical dilemmas due to overlap in moral believes. In such cases, it becomes even trickier since the person has to forego one or more of the choices. Multiple modalities may also come up as a result of representing people with different cultural backgrounds and thus different moralities. Such cases are difficult to resolve due to the time constraint. The Conception of Moral Dilemmas In the case of an ethical dilemma, an individual regards himself as having moral background to do either of the actions. Noteworthy is the fact that it is impossible to do both actions simultaneously. This further defines a moral dilemma in ethical terms. The fundamentals of a moral dilemma may include: a situation where an individual (agent) is obligated to do every one of the actions (two or more) deeds, a person is fully capable of doing either of the actions, but cannot do both of the actions (Spector, 17). The person thus appears condemned to moral disappointment; regardless of what he does, he will do something immoral. Some cases are often perceived by many as too straightforward to be considered as a legitimate moral dilemma. To the person, the solution is rather clear but more important to defend the community from harm than to mend an already messed up situation. This is primarily determined by the convolution of morality in the particular setup (Papenfuse, 14). Different communities have different perceptions of what they consider ethical and unethical. What may be considered a moral dilemma in one community may not be a dilemma in another community where there are different ethical backgrounds. In addition to the description discussed above, in order to have a legitimate moral dilemma it also has to be true that neither of the contradictory actions is countermanded. Personal example Other than the case of completing assignments on time that occurs on a personal level, there are more complex ethical dilemmas involving more than one party. In such cases, an individual is faced with the dilemma of obeying an authoritative directive at the expense of friendship or vice versa. At one particular moment, I was in the midst of such a dilemma whereby I was asked to join in a strike. To start with, there was a valid reason for the strike but I believed a strike was not the best way out of the situation. The protest was organized so as to bring to light the many forms of harassments imposed to the junior members of the school by the seniors. In contrast, I was afraid of the consequences of the strike. Involvement in such activities would mean expulsion from the school or even worse ending up as a police case. The ethical dilemma Having passed through junior classes, I clearly understood the circumstances at hand and before I conceptualized what was happening, I was on the hot seat where I had to make a decision. I clearly understood the complexity of the subject and the possible outcomes. I was already in a position where I could not avoid the dilemma and had to make a decision fast. Buying time to consider the possibilities, my first answer was that I would consider and that I should be allowed some time to think about it. This was a very sensitive situation therefore; I did not have the freedom of consulting other external parties as this would bring about more complexity in the subject. Joining in the strike would be a bad idea as it would mean risking my future in the school as well as my overall feature. Conversely, if the strike was successful and the plan worked as followed, I will have entered in the books of history for an act of general good. What I was not sure at the moment was whether the strike would be a peaceful demonstration or vandalism was the main theme of the strike. While I thought about this, I also considered the legal perspective of the situation. It was illegal to engage in such unlawful activities, but it was the only way that our grievances would be heard. Conversely, the ring leaders in the strike were my friends and there was no legal implication in failing to join in the strike. However, I was afraid that failure to join in the strike would make me an outcast and I would be considered a traitor. This was also a threat to my future in the school if the strike failed. Cold-war is a popular form of punishment in such cases and I was not sure whether it was worth. At the moment, I had a perfect opportunity also to contact the school administration and inform them about the impending strike. They would probably believe me and also considered looking into the subject of harassment. This would also mean that I compromise the entire plan. As I came to think about it, it occurred to me telling me about the strike was a sign of trust and by compromising the plan that would be direct betrayal. Before I had even come into a consensus with myself, I was again approached and informed that we were running out of time. I had to verify whether I was in or not. I had to think fast and give a response. I decided that I would be part of it only if they allowed me to be an inactive member. This was met with more resistance that I thought. I was only allowed to be part of the plan if I had to be 100% committed to the plan, otherwise I was out. It is at this point that I chose not to be part of the plan. Ethical questions All through my monolog, there are many questions that crossed my mind in relation to the situation. If I had gotten involved in the strike, that would mean risking my education; was the risk worth taking? Would I be ready to face the consequences of my actions? Would anyone appreciate my efforts in the current day and time or the future? On the other hand, if I distanced myself from the strike: Would I be able to testify against my friends? Would our friendship still be real after the strike? Is it ethical for me to remain quiet and wait for an oncoming disaster without saying anything to the authority? These are just sample questions of the many queries that I asked myself through the grace period I was allowed to make my decision; the most important question was; which of the two options is moral? Each one of these questions was meant to bring to light the values of the subject as well as the integrity and consequences of each of the actions (Spector, 23). Well, in my opinion, none of the options was wholly ethical; each of the two options had its moral limitations. Looking at the option of getting involved in the strike, we would be using an unethical method to try and enforce values which would not sum up. On the other hand, if I detachment myself, then it would be unethical for me not to stand for the minority group. On the other hand, none of the two options had a desirable result. Getting involved would mean that we disobeyed authority by engaging in unlawful activity and there are legal consequences of such activities. Failure to get involved and it turning to a success would break our friendship and I would also be considered a traitor. The Ethically better Choice In cases of simple moral dilemmas, an action could be ethically better if in comparison with its alternative is out-rightly better while the other is out-rightly wrong. Similarly, there are situations where both actions are unethical. In such cases, one of the actions is bound to be worse than the other and the less immoral is often taken to be the ethically better of the two. One action could be better than the other in the sense that the degree of goodness of the action is greater than the degree of the other. The overall good could also be considered as a measure of what is ethically better. Finally, if an action is considered to be neutral and another considered being unethical, the neutral action will be considered ethically a better choice. There being no option that is wholly moral, there comes the question of what is ethically better. The ethically better choice is a choice that will have the communal welfare before the personal welfare. Moreover, the ethically better option should be the more protective of the two options. In as much as an option to join in for the strike was for the common good, it was the more destructive of the two. In the projected strike, it is probable that the students would go on a rampage and even destroy some valuable items. Ultimately, some people could argue that the end justifies the means but to achieve something good in an unorthodox way is considered unethical. In addition, the strike itself is a risk that nobody sure of the result. The management could consider the grievances and do nothing or worse still the perpetrators could be expelled from school without effecting what they were advocating. On the plus side, the management could listen to the grievances but still expel the perpetrators in addition compensation for the damages. On the other hand, failure to get involved in the strike could mean that the protestors have insufficient bargaining power to push the motion through. This would mean that the juniors will still be oppressed and it would be unethical for me not to stand for justice. It would also mean that I will be considered a traitor and risk the wrath of the students. Either way, this was the ethically better choice more so bearing in mind that it is more conservative. There could be other possible ways to resolve the issues such as calling for a meeting. Through a meeting, it could turn out to be a win-win situation for all parties. The main worry was that an open discussion would not encapsulate the intensity of the subject. Being the ethically better option and against all odds, I had to go for this option and risk the wrath of the strike perpetrators. Conclusion Ethics is apprehensive of what is right or wrong, good or bad in addition to duties and obligations. A moral dilemma is a rational situation in which an individual (agent) is faced with different options and where a decision is made at the expense of another in which none of the options has a desirable outcome. In my case of the strike, I was only provided with two options and very little time to ponder about the results of the actions. This is the typical setup of a moral dilemma where an individual (agent) has little or no time to consider which of the options to take. Consequently, this brings about moral questions to help the agent make a decision. In addition, the question of what is ethically better is a common basis for judgement in ethical dilemmas. The problem of what is ethically better is based on some elements such as consequences and opportunity costs. Factors like peer pressure play a crucial role in determining an agent’s decision in a moral dilemma. In some rare cases, the legal aspects of some matters could be used as a basis of judgement especially in cases where the options overlap in the ethical and legal contexts. Multiple moralities are a major problem in moral dilemmas especially because distinct to the legislature, morals are not clearly stipulated and often change depending on issues like religion and location. In a nutshell, the complexity of a moral dilemma is determined by the consequences and past experiences. Through the past (similar or closely related) experiences, individuals can make decisions. Works Cited Lauer, Eugene F.. Human service strikes: a contemporary ethical dilemma. St. Louis, MO: Catholic Health Association of the United States, 2011. Print. Mason, H. E.. Moral dilemmas and moral theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Papenfuse, Eric Robert. The evils of necessity: Robert Goodloe Harper and the moral dilemma of slavery. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2007. Print. Spector, Tom. The ethical architect: the dilemma of contemporary practice. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011. Print. Williams, Sandra. Conflict of interest: the ethical dilemma in politics. Aldershot, Hants, England: Gower, 2005. Print. Read More