personal experience about having a moral dilemma essay

InterviewPenguin.com – Your best job interview coach since 2011

Interview questions answered: Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma

Life is not easy, or fair. Employees are not always loyal, and won’t do the best thing for the company at all occasions. Actually we face temptation at work every day. A chance to date an attractive colleague , for example, though it may be only an unrealistic dream, especially when they are married. Or an opportunity to approve this or that contract, or choose a specific supplier , because it will pocket us a few extra thousands dollars.

There are many other dilemmas we can face. Should you opt for the less expensive way of doing something, though it is not environmentally friendly ? Should you sell your client a certain product, which is good enough for them, though you know you could sell them a more expensive alternative , and make more money along the way, for both you and your employer?

Facing an ethical dilemma is something normal, something you cannot entirely avoid , unless you work as a lighthouse keeper. What matters to the interviewers is your attitude. How did you eventually decide? Did you do the right thing for you, for the company, for the environment ? And what factors did you consider before making your decision? That’s why they ask you to provide an example when your ethics were tested.

Let’s have a look at 7 sample answers to this interesting interview question. I hope you will find at least one answer that resonates with your personality and experiences in my selection, one you can use in your interview. Enjoy!

7 sample answers to “Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma” interview question

I faced a big one in my last job of a production manager. We were negotiating with several suppliers of clothes. One factory from Bangladesh gave us by far the best offer, and on paper they passed all environmental checks . But when our guys traveled there to inspect the production site, they found out that the company actually faked a lot of things, and polluted local rivers while producing clothing . Now, I could have said it didn’t matter. It was thousands of miles away after all, and they gave us the best offer, and they had the papers and certificates and everything. So it definitely was an ethical dilemma . But I eventually decided to reject them. What’s more, I reported them to local authorities. We chose another supplier. We paid more, our profit margin was tighter but we did not lie to our customers and did not participate on polluting the nature. I believe I made the right decision, though not everyone in the company would agree with that.
Speaking honestly, my ethics were tested a lot in my last job . I knew that my manager was interested in me. They could get me a much better position in the company, or authorize a big raise. Just I had to go with them for a drink a few times. It was obvious and they made the offer several times. However, first and foremost, I knew it was not the right way up the career ladder , not the right thing to do. What’s more, they were married, so even from an ethical standpoint it was not correct to go with them… Hence I refused their offer repeatedly. Instead of promoting me, they decided to make it really difficult for me in work . Apparently they didn’t like losing, or maybe they weren’t used to getting refused. At the end of the day, I had to leave the company, and that’s why I am here today. But I would do the same thing again, because money is not the most important thing for me, and it never has been.

* Do not forget to check also : Full list of most common behavioral (describe a time when…) interview questions .

This is my first job application , so I haven’t faced any ethical dilemmas at work yet. But I’ve faced them regularly during my studies… You know how it works with the exams. Someone knows the questions beforehand, and sometimes it is easy to cheat , because the professor doesn’t pay attention. I would lie to you if I said that I never cheated. But I eventually realized that it wasn’t ethically correct , and more importantly, that first and foremost I was cheating myself . I went to college to learn something. Getting the diploma was the goal, but the knowledge mattered for me more , and the connections with the community of students and teachers. Hence I decided to quit cheating, during my second year at the college. I managed to stick to my promise till the end of my studies.
In my opinion, we face such dilemmas every day . And if we are responsible, and think about future generations as well, we should think about our daily decision. Take a typical shopping in a supermarket as an example. Will I drive there, or walk? Will I prefer local and environmentally friendly food , or will I opt for imported alternative, just because it costs less money? And how much will I buy? A lot, so we have a great selection back home, but eventually throw half of the food to rubbish , just like most US households? Or just enough, so maybe we can’t satisfy each carving of the stomach, but will end up eating and processing everything we bought? I try to think about these things, because I realize that each decision I make has an impact on the planet , and especially on the future generations. We shouldn’t be so selfish…
Working as a purchasing agent , I faced many ethical dilemmas in my last job. You know how it works in this business, don’t you? A manager from one of the suppliers calls you and invites you for a private meeting. There’s an envelope on the table , or they make you a direct offer–you can get this and this if we win this competition. They do not always have to offer you money, but they will offer something. This is how it works, sad but true. But I never accepted such an offer, I kept my integrity . Maybe I was stupid, hard to say. Because if I accepted few of these offers I might have enough money today to not apply for jobs for the next ten years. But you cannot be someone you aren’t . I enjoy working, and I am not the kind of guy who would enjoy drinking champagne in a tropical resort for months on end… So I quit my job, and here I am, trying to start a new career with you.
Actually I am here because of the last dilemma I faced –whether or not to stay with my present employer. When I graduated from pharmacy I was naive . I really thought that drugs help people, that pharmaceutical companies exist to help cure diseases and make the population healthier. I couldn’t be more wrong . They exist only to generate profit, lot of it. And to actually make the population sicker, or addicted to the drugs they produce, so they can make even more money each year. It is a vicious cycle, but I decided to quit the ride . Surely, they paid me well , and I have to start from scratch in a new field now. But money isn’t everything, and I could not live with myself if I stayed in the pharma business any longer.
I faced such dilemmas each day with my last employer, and that’s exactly why I left them–because I was too weak, and I often fell for the temptation . And then I felt terrible. Let me explain it in more detail. I was selling insurance and retirement plans to clients. But we did not get the same commission from each provider. Actually one provider paid 50% more to the agents, and their product looked great on the paper. In reality, however, the clients paid a lot on hidden fees each year , and they eventually saved less money in a long run. But I still sold this plan to some clients, and I felt terrible afterwards… Here I am, honest and smarter than before, applying for a job with your company. I know that your agents get the same commission for each deal they close. I really like this payment model, because it motivates us to look for the best solution for the client, and not the one which is best for our pocket…

Ethical dilemma examples for students

If you face this question in a school admission interview , or should write as essay on the topic , as a part of an admission process, the pivotal thing remains the same: to show the right attitude, to explain your reasoning . You were tempted, no doubt, but you eventually did the right thing, or at least one you considered right . Or at least that’s what you should write or say :). To some good examples of ethical dilemmas for students belong:

Do I pick the major I love, or do I decide according to the eventual salary and career opportunities?
Will I help my classmate during an important exam, since I know how much it matters for them to pass, even if it entails cheating? Or will I, on the contrary, ignore them or even notify the teacher?
Do I try to stand out in a classroom, always having the best answer ready, or do I rather back up, giving some of other schoolmates the opportunity to stand out and shine?
Will I go to the party, to strengthen the camaraderie with my schoolmates, or will I rather skip it since it will impact my studies?

None of these situations is easy, but as long as you explain your reasoning on your essay (or in the interviews), the admission committee should be happy with your answer. Show them that you are a mature individual who sees pros and cons of their actions. You always try to do the right thing, though you may something do the wrong one–you’re still just a student at the end, trying to find your way in life…

Ready to answer this one? I hope so! Do not forget to check also the following posts, to make sure you get ready for your interview:

Tell us about a time when you had to comply with a policy you didn’t agree with.
What is the most important thing you learned at school?
What makes you unique?
Recent Posts

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethical Dilemma — An Overview of the Ethical Dilemma in a Personal Case

An Overview of The Ethical Dilemma in a Personal Case

Categories: Ethical Dilemma

About this sample

Words: 982 |

Published: Jul 27, 2018

Words: 982 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Ethical dilemma, response analysis, virtue ethics and my response, application of different ethical theories.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 581 words

1 pages / 522 words

7 pages / 3193 words

1 pages / 620 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethical Dilemma

Our personal lives have been affected by the developing technology in recent years, as well as business environments, business principles, and working arrangements are influenced and shaped by these developments. With [...]

In Rebecca Skloot's book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, she delves into the story of Henrietta and her family to uncover the impact of her cells on the field of medicine. Skloot begins her narrative by recalling a [...]

Tony, who is 67 years old and competent, has been diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer. He admits to the hospital staff that he does not want any treatment and informs them that he already signed an advanced medical [...]

I am a student of Economics and Business studies in one of the most prestigious universities in Pakistan and we have a significant part of our course that outlines the ethical issues and dilemmas that are faced in this line of [...]

“Rules and criteria for ethical judgement are all very well, but when conflicts are finely balanced, we simply express our preferences.”The concept of moral justification in ethics examples has been a topic of discussion for [...]

Imagine a scenario where you are standing on a bridge, witnessing a speeding train heading towards five people tied to the tracks. In front of you, there is a lever that, if pulled, would divert the train onto a different track, [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Philosophy and Psychology

Moral Dilemmas: What Are They and How Can They Be Solved?

Presentations made painless

Get Premium

101 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Ethical dilemmas are situations in which individuals are faced with conflicting moral choices. These dilemmas can arise in a variety of contexts, from personal relationships to professional settings. Writing an essay exploring ethical dilemmas can help you develop critical thinking skills and engage with complex moral issues.

To help you get started, here are 101 ethical dilemma essay topic ideas and examples:

Should parents have the right to choose their child's gender?
Is it ethical to use animals for scientific research?
Should doctors be allowed to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives?
Is it ethical for companies to use data mining to target consumers with personalized ads?
Should schools teach students about different religious beliefs?
Is it ethical to use drones for military surveillance?
Should athletes be allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs?
Is it ethical to genetically modify crops to increase yield?
Should governments regulate the use of social media to prevent misinformation?
Is it ethical to use sweatshop labor to produce cheap goods?
Should companies be required to disclose the environmental impact of their products?
Is it ethical to use algorithms to make hiring decisions?
Should parents be allowed to track their children's online activity?
Is it ethical to use artificial intelligence in criminal justice systems?
Should doctors be allowed to prescribe placebos to patients?
Is it ethical to use genetic testing to screen for diseases?
Should schools monitor students' social media activity to prevent cyberbullying?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes?
Should companies be required to pay a living wage to their employees?
Is it ethical to use virtual reality to simulate traumatic experiences for therapy?
Should journalists be allowed to publish leaked government documents?
Is it ethical to use animals for entertainment purposes, such as in circuses?
Should governments regulate the use of AI in autonomous weapons?
Is it ethical to use predictive policing algorithms to prevent crime?
Should companies be required to provide paid parental leave to employees?
Is it ethical to use gene editing technology to create designer babies?
Should schools teach students about the ethical implications of climate change?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology in public spaces?
Should employers be allowed to monitor employees' internet usage?
Is it ethical to use AI to create deepfake videos?
Should doctors be allowed to perform cosmetic surgery on minors?
Is it ethical to use drones for environmental monitoring?
Should companies be required to disclose their political donations?
Is it ethical to use social media algorithms to manipulate user behavior?
Should governments regulate the use of biometric data for security purposes?
Is it ethical to use gene editing technology to cure genetic diseases?
Should schools teach students about the ethical implications of artificial intelligence?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology in schools?
Should employers be allowed to use AI to make hiring decisions?
Is it ethical to use predictive analytics to assess creditworthiness?
Should companies be required to disclose the gender pay gap?
Is it ethical to use AI to create personalized healthcare treatments?
Should doctors be allowed to perform experimental treatments on patients?
Is it ethical to use drones for wildlife conservation?
Should governments regulate the use of AI in financial markets?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology for identity verification?
Should employers be allowed to use AI to monitor employee productivity?
Is it ethical to use gene editing technology to create new species?
Should schools teach students about the ethical implications of genetic engineering?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology in airports?
Should companies be required to disclose their carbon footprint?
Is it ethical to use AI to predict criminal behavior?
Should doctors be allowed to prescribe psychedelics for mental health treatment?
Is it ethical to use drones for disaster response?
Should governments regulate the use of AI in healthcare?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology in law enforcement?
Should employers be allowed to use AI to monitor employee emotions?
Is it ethical to use gene editing technology to create designer pets?
Should schools teach students about the ethical implications of nanotechnology?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology in retail stores?
Should companies be required to disclose their use of data analytics?
Is it ethical to use AI to predict job performance?
Should doctors be allowed to assist patients in medical tourism?
Is it ethical to use drones for agricultural monitoring?
Should governments regulate the use of AI in transportation?
Is it ethical to use facial recognition technology in public transportation?
Should employers be allowed to use AI to monitor employee health? 68

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

Testimonials
How it works
Paper Writers Team
Essay Writing Guide
Free plagiarism checker
Essay title generator
Conclusion Generator
Citation Generator
Can ChatGPT Write Essays?
Types of Essays
Essay Writing Formats
Essay Topics
Best Research Paper Topics
Essays by Subject
Ethical Dilemma Essay

TOOLS FOR WRITING – THE ETHICAL DILEMMA ESSAY

Table of contents, defining an ethical dilemma, ethical dilemma essay topics, how to write an ethical dilemma essay, ethical dilemma essay examples.

We all have a sense of ethics – moral principles that are a part of who we are . Some people are fully opposed to the death penalty; others are opposed to abortion; some support mercy killing, or the “right to die.” But what happens when our moral principles are put to the test through an ethical dilemma?

Basically, an ethical dilemma is facing a decision that, in making that decision, violates a moral principle in order to follow another one . Either decision will mean violating one of your moral principles.

An ethical dilemma is facing a decision that, in making that decision, violates a moral principle in order to follow another one

A simple and often used example of a moral dilemma is this: You are on a ship that is sinking, and you must get into a lifeboat. That lifeboat can only hold 10 people without sinking, and there are 11 of you that need to get into it. Your moral principle is the preservation of life at all costs. How do you determine who does not get into that lifeboat? Or do you put all 11 in the lifeboat which will kill all of you? Any decision you make will compromise your principle of preserving life at all costs.

If you are assigned an ethical dilemma essay, chances are you are given a question or a prompt for that essay, but if not you can always search for a write my paper help on our web-site

Sample Ethical Dilemma Essay

Writer144311.

Writer144311 has a background in marketing, technology, and business intelligence. S/he enjoys writing about data science, BI, new marketing trends and branding strategies. On TrustMyPaper s/he shares her practical experience through academic writing.

Have you ever faced an ethical dilemma? Write a personal ethical dilemma essay about one such dilemma and how you handled it. It will be in the first person and will not have to follow the formal writing rules of academic writing .

Here are several potential topics of an ethical dilemma essay. You will note that most provide scenarios in which a person will have to make a decision.

Best ethical dilemma essay topics:

You are a nurse who is committed to providing the best possible care according to the protocols that have been established. You have a patient who is dying. He is in extreme pain. You are charged with administering pain medication on a set schedule, but the patient remains in extreme pain and is asking for more pain medication on a shorter schedule. Do you follow your moral principle of relieving pain or the protocols that have been established?
You are the spouse of a woman who has gone into labor. There are complications. The doctor has informed you that you must make a decision to save the life or your wife or your as yet unborn child. What is your decision-making process, and how does either decision compromise your moral principles of the sanctity of life? Do you abort the child and condemn it to death or do you preserve the life of your wife?
You have witnessed your best friend cheating on an exam. Do you let loyalty to your friend prevail and not report this, or do you abide by your sense of what is right and report the incident to your instructor?
You are an animal rights advocate, believing that all life is sacred. A biological research company is conducting research using animals as subjects. The goal of this research is to eliminate a horrible disease that is afflicting many people all over the world., but animals will suffer even die, in the process. Can you reconcile your advocacy of animal rights with the greater good of saving human lives?

While your essay will follow the standard format – introduction, body, and conclusion – it may be of different types. You may be writing a narrative of personal experience; you may be writing a more academic piece on an ethical dilemma in a conceptual way; you may be writing an argumentative piece on a specific ethical dilemma. And some of these types of essays may require some research.

Once you have completed your mind map, and consolidated the items into specific points that you want to make, you are ready to craft at least a rough outline of the body paragraphs you will compose.

Develop your thesis statement based upon your points. What is it that you are trying to “prove” to your audience? What do you want your reader to take away from this essay? Your answer to these questions will help you to form your thesis statement.

Write your body paragraphs first. These must be well-formed, with topic sentences and lots of detail to support them.

One the body paragraphs are constructed, you are ready to craft your introduction – a part of your essay that will introduce the topic and provide your thesis for the essay. Work to create a “hook” for your reader – something that will pique their interest and motivate them to read on. This might be a startling statistic, a quote from a famous person, or a short anecdote to which they can relate.

Carefully think about your conclusion. You will want to re-state your thesis , of course, but you also may need to encourage those who are dealing with moral dilemmas , as they struggle with their own.

There are plenty of ethical dilemma essay examples out there on the web. And they will give you great ideas about structure and format. But understand this: your essay must be uniquely yours. You must insert your own style, your own ideas, your own style into your essay, or it won’t be compelling or engaging to your reader. Take the ideas; take the points. But make the essay yours alone.

External links

How to Mind Map with Tony Buzan. (2015). [YouTube Video]. In YouTube . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Y4pIsXTV0

How ready is your essay?

Don`t have an account?

Password recovery instructions have been sent to your email

Back to Log in

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Moral Dilemmas

Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. Consider the cases given below.

1. Examples

2. the concept of moral dilemmas, 3. problems, 4. dilemmas and consistency, 5. responses to the arguments, 6. moral residue and dilemmas, 7. types of moral dilemmas, 8. multiple moralities, 9. conclusion, cited works, other worthwhile readings, other internet resources, related entries.

In Book I of Plato’s Republic , Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth and paying one’s debts. Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be wrong to repay certain debts—for example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in his right mind. Socrates’ point is not that repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he wants to show that it is not always right to repay one’s debts, at least not exactly when the one to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have here is a conflict between two moral norms: repaying one’s debts and protecting others from harm. And in this case, Socrates maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.

Nearly twenty-four centuries later, Jean-Paul Sartre described a moral conflict the resolution of which was, to many, less obvious than the resolution to the Platonic conflict. Sartre (1957) tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student’s mother was living with him, and he was her one consolation in life. The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

While the examples from Plato and Sartre are the ones most commonly cited, there are many others. Literature abounds with such cases. In Aeschylus’s Agamemnon , the protagonist ought to save his daughter and ought to lead the Greek troops to Troy; he ought to do each but he cannot do both. And Antigone, in Sophocles’s play of the same name, ought to arrange for the burial of her brother, Polyneices, and ought to obey the pronouncements of the city’s ruler, Creon; she can do each of these things, but not both. Areas of applied ethics, such as biomedical ethics, business ethics, and legal ethics, are also replete with such cases.

What is common to the two well-known cases 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 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).

The Platonic case strikes many as too easy to be characterized as a genuine moral dilemma. For the agent’s solution in that case is clear; it is more important to protect people from harm than to return a borrowed weapon. And in any case, the borrowed item can be returned later, when the owner no longer poses a threat to others. Thus in this case we can say that the requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay one’s debts by returning a borrowed item when its owner so demands. When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we have a conflict but not a genuine moral dilemma. So in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, Chapter 1).

It is less obvious in Sartre’s case that one of the requirements overrides the other. Why this is so, however, may not be so obvious. Some will say that our uncertainty about what to do in this case is simply the result of uncertainty about the consequences. If we were certain that the student could make a difference in defeating the Germans, the obligation to join the military would prevail. But if the student made little difference whatsoever in that cause, then his obligation to tend to his mother’s needs would take precedence, since there he is virtually certain to be helpful. Others, though, will say that these obligations are equally weighty, and that uncertainty about the consequences is not at issue here.

Ethicists as diverse as Kant (1971/1797), Mill (1979/1861), and Ross (1930, 1939) have assumed that an adequate moral theory should not allow for the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. Only recently—in the last sixty years or so—have philosophers begun to challenge that assumption. And the challenge can take at least two different forms. Some will argue that it is not possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. Others will argue that even if it were possible, it is not desirable to do so.

To illustrate some of the debate that occurs regarding whether it is possible for any theory to eliminate genuine moral dilemmas, consider the following. The conflicts in Plato’s case and in Sartre’s case arose because there is more than one moral precept (using ‘precept’ to designate rules and principles), more than one precept sometimes applies to the same situation, and in some of these cases the precepts demand conflicting actions. One obvious solution here would be to arrange the precepts, however many there might be, hierarchically. By this scheme, the highest ordered precept always prevails, the second prevails unless it conflicts with the first, and so on. There are at least two glaring problems with this obvious solution, however. First, it just does not seem credible to hold that moral rules and principles should be hierarchically ordered. While the requirements to keep one’s promises and to prevent harm to others clearly can conflict, it is far from clear that one of these requirements should always prevail over the other. In the Platonic case, the obligation to prevent harm is clearly stronger. But there can easily be cases where the harm that can be prevented is relatively mild and the promise that is to be kept is very important. And most other pairs of precepts are like this. This was a point made by Ross in The Right and the Good (1930, Chapter 2).

The second problem with this easy solution is deeper. Even if it were plausible to arrange moral precepts hierarchically, situations can arise in which the same precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Perhaps the most widely discussed case of this sort is taken from William Styron’s Sophie’s Choice (1980, 528–529; see Greenspan 1983 and Tessman 2015, 160–163). 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. Thus the same moral precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Some have called such cases symmetrical (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, Chapter 2).

We shall return to the issue of whether it is possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. But what about the desirability of doing so? Why have ethicists thought that their theories should preclude the possibility of dilemmas? 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 each of two acts but cannot do both. And since he cannot do both, not doing one is a condition of doing the other. Thus, it seems that the same act is both required and forbidden. But exposing a logical inconsistency takes some work; for initial inspection reveals that the inconsistency intuitively felt is not present. Allowing \(OA\) to designate that the agent in question ought to do \(A\) (or is morally obligated to do \(A\), or is morally required to do \(A)\), that \(OA\) and \(OB\) are both true is not itself inconsistent, even if one adds that it is not possible for the agent to do both \(A\) and \(B\). And even if the situation is appropriately described as \(OA\) and \(O\neg A\), that is not a contradiction; the contradictory of \(OA\) is \(\neg OA\). (See Marcus 1980 and McConnell 1978, 273.)

Similarly rules that generate moral dilemmas are not inconsistent, at least on the usual understanding of that term. Ruth Marcus suggests plausibly that we “define a set of rules as consistent if there is some possible world in which they are all obeyable in all circumstances in that world.” Thus, “rules are consistent if there are possible circumstances in which no conflict will emerge,” and “a set of rules is inconsistent if there are no circumstances, no possible world, in which all the rules are satisfiable” (Marcus 1980, 128 and 129). Kant, Mill, and Ross were likely aware that a dilemma-generating theory need not be inconsistent. Even so, they would be disturbed if their own theories allowed for such predicaments. If this speculation is correct, it suggests that Kant, Mill, Ross, and others thought that there is an important theoretical feature that dilemma-generating theories lack. And this is understandable. It is certainly no comfort to an agent facing a reputed moral dilemma to be told that at least the rules which generate this predicament are consistent because there is a possible world in which they do not conflict. For a good practical example, consider the situation of the criminal defense attorney. She is said to have an obligation to hold in confidence the disclosures made by a client and to be required to conduct herself with candor before the court (where the latter requires that the attorney inform the court when her client commits perjury) (Freedman 1975, Chapter 3). It is clear that in this world these two obligations often conflict. It is equally clear that in some possible world—for example, one in which clients do not commit perjury—that both obligations can be satisfied. Knowing this is of no assistance to defense attorneys who face a conflict between these two requirements in this world.

Ethicists who are concerned that their theories not allow for moral dilemmas have more than consistency in mind. What is troubling is that theories that allow for dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding . A theory is appropriately action-guiding if it assesses an agent’s options as either forbidden, (merely) permissible, or obligatory (or, possibly, supererogatory). If more than one action is right, then the agent’s obligation is to do any one of the right acts. A theory can fail to be uniquely action-guiding in either of two ways: by recommending incompatible actions in a situation or by not recommending any action at all. Theories that generate genuine moral dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding in the former way. Theories that have no way, even in principle, of determining what an agent should do in a particular situation have what Thomas E. Hill, Jr. calls “gaps” (Hill 1996, 179–183); they fail to be action-guiding in the latter way. Since one of the main points of moral theories is to provide agents with guidance, that suggests that it is desirable for theories to eliminate dilemmas and gaps, at least if doing so is possible.

But failing to be uniquely action-guiding is not the only reason that the existence of moral dilemmas is thought to be troublesome. Just as important, the existence of dilemmas does lead to inconsistencies if certain other widely held theses are true. Here we shall consider two different arguments, each of which shows that one cannot consistently acknowledge the reality of moral dilemmas while holding selected (and seemingly plausible) principles.

The first argument shows that two standard principles of deontic logic are, when conjoined, incompatible with the existence of moral dilemmas. The first of these is the principle of deontic consistency

Intuitively this principle just says that the same action cannot be both obligatory and forbidden. Note that as initially described, the existence of dilemmas does not conflict with PC. For as described, dilemmas involve a situation in which an agent ought to do \(A\), ought to do \(B\), but cannot do both \(A\) and \(B\). But if we add a principle of deontic logic , then we obtain a conflict with PC:

Intuitively, PD just says that if doing \(A\) brings about \(B\), and if \(A\) is obligatory (morally required), then \(B\) is obligatory (morally required). The first argument that generates inconsistency can now be stated. Premises (1), (2), and (3) represent the claim that moral dilemmas exist.

Line (10) directly conflicts with PC. And from PC and (1), we can conclude:

And, of course, (9) and (11) are contradictory. So if we assume PC and PD, then the existence of dilemmas generates an inconsistency of the old-fashioned logical sort. (Note: In standard deontic logic, the ‘\(\Box\)’ in PD typically designates logical necessity. Here I take it to indicate physical necessity so that the appropriate connection with premise (3) can be made. And I take it that logical necessity is stronger than physical necessity.)

Two other principles accepted in most systems of deontic logic entail PC. So if PD holds, then one of these additional two principles must be jettisoned too. The first says that if an action is obligatory, it is also permissible. The second says that an action is permissible if and only if it is not forbidden. These principles may be stated as:

Principles OP and D are basic; they seem to be conceptual truths (Brink 1994, section IV). From these two principles, one can deduce PC, which gives it additional support.

The second argument that generates inconsistency, like the first, has as its first three premises a symbolic representation of a moral dilemma.

And like the first, this second argument shows that the existence of dilemmas leads to a contradiction if we assume two other commonly accepted principles. The first of these principles is that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. Intuitively this says that if an agent is morally required to do an action, it must be within the agent’s power to do it. This principle seems necessary if moral judgments are to be uniquely action-guiding. We may represent this as

The other principle, endorsed by most systems of deontic logic, says that if an agent is required to do each of two actions, she is required to do both. We may represent this as

The argument then proceeds:

So if one assumes that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and if one assumes the principle represented in (5)—dubbed by some the agglomeration principle (Williams 1965)—then again a contradiction can be derived.

Now obviously the inconsistency in the first argument can be avoided if one denies either PC or PD. And the inconsistency in the second argument can be averted if one gives up either the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ or the agglomeration principle. There is, of course, another way to avoid these inconsistencies: deny the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. It is fair to say that much of the debate concerning moral dilemmas in the last sixty years has been about how to avoid the inconsistencies generated by the two arguments above.

Opponents of moral dilemmas have generally held that the crucial principles in the two arguments above are conceptually true, and therefore we must deny the possibility of genuine dilemmas. (See, for example, Conee 1982 and Zimmerman 1996.) Most of the debate, from all sides, has focused on the second argument. There is an oddity about this, however. When one examines the pertinent principles in each argument which, in combination with dilemmas, generates an inconsistency, there is little doubt that those in the first argument have a greater claim to being conceptually true than those in the second. (One who recognizes the salience of the first argument is Brink 1994, section V.) Perhaps the focus on the second argument is due to the impact of Bernard Williams’s influential essay (Williams 1965). But notice that the first argument shows that if there are genuine dilemmas, then either PC or PD must be relinquished. Even most supporters of dilemmas acknowledge that PC is quite basic. E.J. Lemmon, for example, notes that if PC does not hold in a system of deontic logic, then all that remains are truisms and paradoxes (Lemmon 1965, p. 51). And giving up PC also requires denying either OP or D, each of which also seems basic. There has been much debate about PD—in particular, questions generated by the Good Samaritan paradox—but still it seems basic. So those who want to argue against dilemmas purely on conceptual grounds are better off focusing on the first of the two arguments above.

Some opponents of dilemmas also hold that the pertinent principles in the second argument—the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and the agglomeration principle—are conceptually true. But foes of dilemmas need not say this. Even if they believe that a conceptual argument against dilemmas can be made by appealing to PC and PD, they have several options regarding the second argument. They may defend ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, but hold that it is a substantive normative principle, not a conceptual truth. Or they may even deny the truth of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ or the agglomeration principle, though not because of moral dilemmas, of course.

Defenders of dilemmas need not deny all of the pertinent principles. If one thinks that each of the principles at least has some initial plausibility, then one will be inclined to retain as many as possible. Among the earlier contributors to this debate, some took the existence of dilemmas as a counterexample to ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ (for example, Lemmon 1962 and Trigg 1971); others, as a refutation of the agglomeration principle (for example, Williams 1965 and van Fraassen 1973). A common response to the first argument is to deny PD. A more complicated response is to grant that the crucial deontic principles hold, but only in ideal worlds. In the real world, they have heuristic value, bidding agents in conflict cases to look for permissible options, though none may exist (Holbo 2002, especially sections 15–17).

Friends and foes of dilemmas have a burden to bear in responding to the two arguments above. For there is at least a prima facie plausibility to the claim that there are moral dilemmas and to the claim that the relevant principles in the two arguments are true. Thus each side must at least give reasons for denying the pertinent claims in question. Opponents of dilemmas must say something in response to the positive arguments that are given for the reality of such conflicts. One reason in support of dilemmas, as noted above, is simply pointing to examples. The case of Sartre’s student and that from Sophie’s Choice are good ones; and clearly these can be multiplied indefinitely. It will tempting for supporters of dilemmas to say to opponents, “If this is not a real dilemma, then tell me what the agent ought to do and why ?” It is obvious, however, that attempting to answer such questions is fruitless, and for at least two reasons. First, any answer given to the question is likely to be controversial, certainly not always convincing. And second, this is a game that will never end; example after example can be produced. The more appropriate response on the part of foes of dilemmas is to deny that they need to answer the question. Examples as such cannot establish the reality of dilemmas. Surely most will acknowledge that there are situations in which an agent does not know what he ought to do. This may be because of factual uncertainty, uncertainty about the consequences, uncertainty about what principles apply, or a host of other things. 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.

Another reason in support of dilemmas to which opponents must respond is the point about symmetry. As the cases from Plato and Sartre show, moral rules can conflict. But opponents of dilemmas can argue that in such cases one rule overrides the other. Most will grant this in the Platonic case, and opponents of dilemmas will try to extend this point to all cases. But the hardest case for opponents is the symmetrical one, where the same precept generates the conflicting requirements. The case from Sophie’s Choice is of this sort. It makes no sense to say that a rule or principle overrides itself. So what do opponents of dilemmas say here? They are apt to argue that the pertinent, all-things-considered requirement in such a case is disjunctive: Sophie should act to save one or the other of her children, since that is the best that she can do (for example, Zimmerman 1996, Chapter 7). Such a move need not be ad hoc , since in many cases it is quite natural. If an agent can afford to make a meaningful contribution to only one charity, the fact that there are several worthwhile candidates does not prompt many to say that the agent will fail morally no matter what he does. Nearly all of us think that he should give to one or the other of the worthy candidates. Similarly, if two people are drowning and an agent is situated so that she can save either of the two but only one, few say that she is doing wrong no matter which person she saves. Positing a disjunctive requirement in these cases seems perfectly natural, and so such a move is available to opponents of dilemmas as a response to symmetrical cases.

Supporters of dilemmas have a burden to bear too. They need to cast doubt on the adequacy of the pertinent principles in the two arguments that generate inconsistencies. And most importantly, they need to provide independent reasons for doubting whichever of the principles they reject. If they have no reason other than cases of putative dilemmas for denying the principles in question, then we have a mere standoff. Of the principles in question, the most commonly questioned on independent grounds are the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and PD. Among supporters of dilemmas, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Sinnott-Armstrong 1988, Chapters 4 and 5) has gone to the greatest lengths to provide independent reasons for questioning some of the relevant principles.

One well-known argument for the reality of moral dilemmas has not been discussed yet. This argument might be called “phenomenological.” It appeals to the emotions that agents facing conflicts experience and our assessment of those emotions.

Return to the case of Sartre’s student. Suppose that he joins the Free French forces. It is likely that he will experience remorse or guilt for having abandoned his mother. And not only will he experience these emotions, this moral residue, but it is appropriate that he does. Yet, had he stayed with his mother and not joined the Free French forces, he also would have appropriately experienced remorse or guilt. But either remorse or guilt is appropriate only if the agent properly believes that he has done something wrong (or failed to do something that he was all-things-considered required to do). Since no matter what the agent does he will appropriately experience remorse or guilt, then no matter what he does he will have done something wrong. Thus, the agent faces a genuine moral dilemma. (The best known proponents of arguments for dilemmas that appeal to moral residue are Williams 1965 and Marcus 1980; for a more recent contribution, see Tessman 2015, especially Chapter 2.)

Many cases of moral conflict are similar to Sartre’s example with regard to the agent’s reaction after acting. Certainly the case from Sophie’s Choice fits here. 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 1996, pp. 37–38). 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 and moral failure is inevitable for agents who face them.

There is much to say about the moral emotions and situations of moral conflict; the positions are varied and intricate. Without pretending to resolve all of the issues here, it will be pointed out that opponents of dilemmas have raised two different objections to the argument from moral residue. The first objection, in effect, suggests that the argument is question-begging (McConnell 1978 and Conee 1982); the second objection challenges the assumption that remorse and guilt are appropriate only when the agent has done wrong.

To explain the first objection, note that it is uncontroversial that some bad feeling or other is called for when an agent is in a situation like that of Sartre’s student or Sophie. But the negative moral emotions are not limited to remorse and guilt. Among these other emotions, consider regret. An agent can appropriately experience regret even when she does not believe that she has done something wrong. Consider a compelling example provided by Edmund Santurri (1987, 46). Under battlefield conditions, an army medic must perform a life-saving amputation of a soldier’s leg with insufficient anesthetic. She will surely feel intense regret because of the pain she has inflicted, but justifiably she will not feel that she has done wrong. Regret can even be appropriate when a person has no causal connection at all with the bad state of affairs. It is appropriate for me to regret the damage that a recent fire has caused to my neighbor’s house, the pain that severe birth defects cause in infants, and the suffering that a starving animal experiences in the wilderness. Not only is it appropriate that I experience regret in these cases, but I would probably be regarded as morally lacking if I did not. (For accounts of moral remainders as they relate specifically to Kantianism and virtue ethics, see, respectively, Hill 1996, 183–187 and Hursthouse 1999, 44–48 and 68–77.)

With remorse or guilt, at least two components are present: the experiential component, namely, the negative feeling that the agent has; and the cognitive component, namely, the belief that the agent has done something wrong and takes responsibility for it. Although this same cognitive component is not part of regret, the negative feeling is. And the experiential component alone cannot serve as a gauge to distinguish regret from remorse, for regret can range from mild to intense, and so can remorse. In part, what distinguishes the two is the cognitive component. But now when we examine the case of an alleged dilemma, such as that of Sartre’s student, it is question-begging to assert that it is appropriate for him to experience remorse no matter what he does. No doubt, it is appropriate for him to experience some negative feeling. To say, however, that it is remorse that is called for is to assume that the agent appropriately believes that he has done something wrong. Since regret is warranted even in the absence of such a belief, to assume that remorse is appropriate is to assume , not argue, that the agent’s situation is genuinely dilemmatic. Opponents of dilemmas can say that one of the requirements overrides the other, or that the agent faces a disjunctive requirement, and that regret is appropriate because even when he does what he ought to do, some bad will ensue. Either side, then, can account for the appropriateness of some negative moral emotion. To get more specific, however, requires more than is warranted by the present argument. This appeal to moral residue, then, does not by itself establish the reality of moral dilemmas.

Matters are even more complicated, though, as the second objection to the argument from moral residue shows. The residues contemplated by proponents of the argument are diverse, ranging from guilt or remorse to a belief that the agent ought to apologize or compensate persons who were negatively impacted by the fact that he did not satisfy one of the conflicting obligations. The argument assumes that experiencing remorse or guilt or believing that one ought to apologize or compensate another are appropriate responses only if the agent believes that he has done something wrong. But this assumption is debatable, for multiple reasons.

First, even when one obligation clearly overrides another in a conflict case, it is often appropriate to apologize to or to explain oneself to any disadvantaged parties. Ross provides such a case (1930, 28): one who breaks a relatively trivial promise in order to assist someone in need should in some way make it up to the promisee. Even though the agent did no wrong, the additional actions promote important moral values (McConnell 1996, 42–44).

Second, as Simon Blackburn argues, compensation or its like may be called for even when there was no moral conflict at all (Blackburn 1996, 135–136). If a coach rightly selected Agnes for the team rather than Belinda, she still is likely to talk to Belinda, encourage her efforts, and offer tips for improving. This kind of “making up” is just basic decency.

Third, the consequences of what one has done may be so horrible as to make guilt inevitable. Consider the case of a middle-aged man, Bill, and a seven-year-old boy, Johnny. It is set in a midwestern village on a snowy December day. Johnny and several of his friends are riding their sleds down a narrow, seldom used street, one that intersects with a busier, although still not heavily traveled, street. Johnny, in his enthusiasm for sledding, is not being very careful. During his final ride he skidded under an automobile passing through the intersection and was killed instantly. The car was driven by Bill. Bill was driving safely, had the right of way, and was not exceeding the speed limit. Moreover, given the physical arrangement, it would have been impossible for Bill to have seen Johnny coming. Bill was not at fault, legally or morally, for Johnny’s death. Yet Bill experienced what can best be described as remorse or guilt about his role in this horrible event (McConnell 1996, 39).

At one level, Bill’s feelings of remorse or guilt are not warranted. Bill did nothing wrong. Certainly Bill does not deserve to feel guilt (Dahl 1996, 95–96). A friend might even recommend that Bill seek therapy. But this is not all there is to say. Most of us understand Bill’s response. From Bill’s point of view, the response is not inappropriate, not irrational, not uncalled-for. To see this, imagine that Bill had had a very different response. Suppose that Bill had said, “I regret Johnny’s death. It is a terrible thing. But it certainly was not my fault. I have nothing to feel guilty about and I don’t owe his parents any apologies.” Even if Bill is correct intellectually, it is hard to imagine someone being able to achieve this sort of objectivity about his own behavior. When human beings have caused great harm, it is natural for them to wonder if they are at fault, even if to outsiders it is obvious that they bear no moral responsibility for the damage. Human beings are not so finely tuned emotionally that when they have been causally responsible for harm, they can easily turn guilt on or off depending on their degree of moral responsibility. (See Zimmerman 1988, 134–135.)

Work in moral psychology can help to explain why self-directed moral emotions like guilt or remorse are natural when an agent has acted contrary to a moral norm, whether justifiably or not. Many moral psychologists describe dual processes in humans for arriving at moral judgments (see, for example, Greene 2013, especially Chapters 4–5, and Haidt 2012, especially Chapter 2). Moral emotions are automatic, the brain’s immediate response to a situation. Reason is more like the brain’s manual mode, employed when automatic settings are insufficient, such as when norms conflict. Moral emotions are likely the product of evolution, reinforcing conduct that promotes social harmony and disapproving actions that thwart that end. If this is correct, then negative moral emotions are apt to be experienced, to some extent, any time an agent’s actions are contrary to what is normally a moral requirement.

So both supporters and opponents of moral dilemmas can give an account of why agents who face moral conflicts appropriately experience negative moral emotions. But there is a complex array of issues concerning the relationship between ethical conflicts and moral emotions, and only book-length discussions can do them justice. (See Greenspan 1995 and Tessman 2015.)

In the literature on moral dilemmas, it is common to draw distinctions among various types of dilemmas. Only some of these distinctions will be mentioned here. It is worth noting that both supporters and opponents of dilemmas tend to draw some, if not all, of these distinctions. And in most cases the motivation for doing so is clear. Supporters of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type \(V\) and \(W\). The upshot is typically a message to opponents of dilemmas: “You think that all moral conflicts are resolvable. And that is understandable, because conflicts of type \(V\) are resolvable. But conflicts of type \(W\) are not resolvable. Thus, contrary to your view, there are some genuine moral dilemmas.” By the same token, opponents of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type \(X\) and \(Y\). And their message to supporters of dilemmas is this: “You think that there are genuine moral dilemmas, and given certain facts, it is understandable why this appears to be the case. But if you draw a distinction between conflicts of types \(X\) and \(Y\), you can see that appearances can be explained by the existence of type \(X\) alone, and type \(X\) conflicts are not genuine dilemmas.” With this in mind, let us note a few of the distinctions.

One distinction is between epistemic conflicts and ontological conflicts. (For different terminology, see Blackburn 1996, 127–128.) 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. 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. 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. Both opponents and supporters of dilemmas acknowledge that there are epistemic conflicts.

There can be genuine moral dilemmas only if neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden. Ross (1930, Chapter 2) held that all moral precepts can be overridden in particular circumstances. This provides an inviting framework for opponents of dilemmas to adopt. But if some moral requirements cannot be overridden—if they hold absolutely—then it will be easier for supporters of dilemmas to make their case. Lisa Tessman has distinguished between negotiable and non-negotiable moral requirements (Tessman 2015, especially Chapters 1 and 3). The former, if not satisfied, can be adequately compensated or counterbalanced by some other good. Non-negotiable moral requirements, however, if violated produce a cost that no one should have to bear; such a violation cannot be counterbalanced by any benefits. If non-negotiable moral requirements can conflict—and Tessman argues that they can—then those situations will be genuine dilemmas and agents facing them will inevitably fail morally. It might seem that if there is more than one moral precept that holds absolutely, then moral dilemmas must be possible. Alan Donagan, however, argues against this. He maintains that moral rules hold absolutely, and apparent exceptions are accounted for because tacit conditions are built in to each moral rule (Donagan 1977, Chapters 3 and 6, especially 92–93). So even if some moral requirements cannot be overridden, the existence of dilemmas may still be an open question.

Another distinction is between 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 (Aquinas; Donagan 1977, 1984; and McConnell 1978). If an agent made two promises that he knew conflicted, 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 (or other agents), by contrast, do not arise because of the agent’s wrongdoing. The case of Sartre’s student is an example, as is the case from Sophie’s Choice . For supporters of dilemmas, this distinction is not all that important. But among opponents of dilemmas, there is a disagreement about whether the distinction is important. Some of these opponents hold that self-imposed dilemmas are possible, but that their existence does not point to any deep flaws in moral theory (Donagan 1977, Chapter 5). Moral theory tells agents how they ought to behave; but if agents violate moral norms, of course things can go askew. Other opponents deny that even self-imposed dilemmas are possible. They argue that an adequate moral theory should tell agents what they ought to do in their current circumstances, regardless of how those circumstances arose. As Hill puts it, “[M]orality acknowledges that human beings are imperfect and often guilty, but it calls upon each at every new moment of moral deliberation to decide conscientiously and to act rightly from that point on” (Hill 1996, 176). Given the prevalence of wrongdoing, if a moral theory did not issue uniquely action-guiding “contrary-to-duty imperatives,” its practical import would be limited.

Yet another distinction is between obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas . The former are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory. The latter involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. Some (especially, Valentyne 1987 and 1989) argue that plausible principles of deontic logic may well render obligation dilemmas impossible; but they do not preclude the possibility of prohibition dilemmas. The case of Sartre’s student, if genuinely dilemmatic, is an obligation dilemma; Sophie’s case is a prohibition dilemma. There is another reason that friends of dilemmas emphasize this distinction. Some think that the “disjunctive solution” used by opponents of dilemmas—when equally strong precepts conflict, the agent is required to act on one or the other—is more plausible when applied to obligation dilemmas than when applied to prohibition dilemmas.

As moral dilemmas are typically described, they involve a single agent . The agent ought, all things considered, to do \(A\), ought, all things considered, to do \(B\), and she cannot do both \(A\) and \(B\). But we can distinguish multi-person dilemmas from single agent ones. The two-person case is representative of multi-person dilemmas. The situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do \(A\), a second agent, P2, ought to do \(B\), and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do \(A\) and P2 to do \(B\). (See Marcus 1980, 122 and McConnell 1988.) Multi-person dilemmas have been called “interpersonal moral conflicts.” Such conflicts are most theoretically worrisome if the same moral system (or theory) generates the conflicting obligations for P1 and P2. A theory that precludes single-agent moral dilemmas remains uniquely action-guiding for each agent. But if that same theory does not preclude the possibility of interpersonal moral conflicts, not all agents will be able to succeed in discharging their obligations, no matter how well-motivated or how hard they try. For supporters of moral dilemmas, this distinction is not all that important. They no doubt welcome (theoretically) more types of dilemmas, since that may make their case more persuasive. But if they establish the reality of single-agent dilemmas, in one sense their work is done. For opponents of dilemmas, however, the distinction may be important. This is because at least some opponents believe that the conceptual argument against dilemmas applies principally to single-agent cases. It does so because the ought-to-do operator of deontic logic and the accompanying principles are properly understood to apply to entities who can make decisions. To be clear, this position does not preclude that collectives (such as businesses or nations) can have obligations. But a necessary condition for this being the case is that there is (or should be) a central deliberative standpoint from which decisions are made. This condition is not satisfied when two otherwise unrelated agents happen to have obligations both of which cannot be discharged. Put simply, while an individual act involving one agent can be the object of choice, a compound act involving multiple agents is difficult so to conceive. (See Smith 1986 and Thomason 1981.) Alexander Dietz (2022) has recently shown, however, that matters can be even more complicated. He describes a case where a small group of people have an obligation to save two strangers, but one of the members of the group has an obligation to save her own child at the same time. The small group and the individual can both make choices, and the group’s obligation conflicts with that of the individual member (assuming that the group can succeed only if all members act in concert). This is an odd multi-agent dilemma, “one in which one of the agents is part of the other” (Dietz 2022, p. 66). Erin Taylor (2011) has argued that neither universalizability nor the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ ensure that there will be no interpersonal moral conflicts (what she calls “irreconcilable differences”). These conflicts would raise no difficulties if morality required trying rather than acting, but such a view is not plausible. Still, moral theories should minimize cases of interpersonal conflict (Taylor 2011, pp. 189–190).To the extent that the possibility of interpersonal moral conflicts raises an intramural dispute among opponents of dilemmas, that dispute concerns how to understand the principles of deontic logic and what can reasonably be demanded of moral theories.

Another issue raised by the topic of moral dilemmas is the relationship among various aspects of morality. Consider this distinction. General obligations are moral requirements that individuals have simply because they are moral agents. That agents are required not to kill, not to steal, and not to assault are examples of general obligations. Agency alone makes these precepts applicable to individuals. By contrast, role-related obligations are moral requirements that agents have in virtue of their role, occupation, or position in society. That lifeguards are required to save swimmers in distress is a role-related obligation. Another example, mentioned earlier, is the obligation of a defense attorney to hold in confidence the disclosures made by a client. These categories need not be exclusive. It is likely that anyone who is in a position to do so ought to save a drowning person. And if a person has particularly sensitive information about another, she should probably not reveal it to third parties regardless of how the information was obtained. But lifeguards have obligations to help swimmers in distress when most others do not because of their abilities and contractual commitments. And lawyers have special obligations of confidentiality to their clients because of implicit promises and the need to maintain trust.

General obligations and role-related obligations can, and sometimes do, conflict. If a defense attorney knows the whereabouts of a deceased body, she may have a general obligation to reveal this information to family members of the deceased. But if she obtained this information from her client, the role-related obligation of confidentiality prohibits her from sharing it with others. Supporters of dilemmas may regard conflicts of this sort as just another confirmation of their thesis. Opponents of dilemmas will have to hold that one of the conflicting obligations takes priority. The latter task could be discharged if it were shown that one these two types of obligations always prevails over the other. But such a claim is implausible; for it seems that in some cases of conflict general obligations are stronger, while in other cases role-related duties take priority. The case seems to be made even better for supporters of dilemmas, and worse for opponents, when we consider that the same agent can occupy multiple roles that create conflicting requirements. The physician, Harvey Kelekian, in Margaret Edson’s (1999/1993) Pulitzer Prize winning play, Wit, is an oncologist, a medical researcher, and a teacher of residents. The obligations generated by those roles lead Dr. Kelekian to treat his patient, Vivian Bearing, in ways that seem morally questionable (McConnell 2009). At first blush, anyway, it does not seem possible for Kelekian to discharge all of the obligations associated with these various roles.

In the context of issues raised by the possibility of moral dilemmas, the role most frequently discussed is that of the political actor. Michael Walzer (1973) claims that the political ruler, qua political ruler, ought to do what is best for the state; that is his principal role-related obligation. But he also ought to abide by the general obligations incumbent on all. Sometimes the political actor’s role-related obligations require him to do evil—that is, to violate some general obligations. Among the examples given by Walzer are making a deal with a dishonest ward boss (necessary to get elected so that he can do good) and authorizing the torture of a person in order to uncover a plot to bomb a public building. Since each of these requirements is binding, Walzer believes that the politician faces a genuine moral dilemma, though, strangely, he also thinks that the politician should choose the good of the community rather than abide by the general moral norms. (The issue here is whether supporters of dilemmas can meaningfully talk about action-guidance in genuinely dilemmatic situations. For one who answers this in the affirmative, see Tessman 2015, especially Chapter 5.) Such a situation is sometimes called “the dirty hands problem.” The expression, “dirty hands,” is taken from the title of a play by Sartre (1946). The idea is that no one can rule without becoming morally tainted. The role itself is fraught with moral dilemmas. This topic has received much attention recently. John Parrish (2007) has provided a detailed history of how philosophers from Plato to Adam Smith have dealt with the issue. And C.A.J. Coady (2008) has suggested that this reveals a “messy morality.”

For opponents of moral dilemmas, the problem of dirty hands represents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge is to show how conflicts between general obligations and role-related obligations, and those among the various role-related obligations, can be resolved in a principled way. The opportunity for theories that purport to have the resources to eliminate dilemmas—such as Kantianism, utilitarianism, and intuitionism—is to show how the many moralities under which people are governed are related.

Debates about moral dilemmas have been extensive during the last six decades. These debates go to the heart of moral theory. Both supporters and opponents of moral dilemmas have major burdens to bear. Opponents of dilemmas must show why appearances are deceiving. Why are examples of apparent dilemmas misleading? Why are certain moral emotions appropriate if the agent has done no wrong? Supporters must show why several of many apparently plausible principles should be given up—principles such as PC, PD, OP, D, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, and the agglomeration principle. And each side must provide a general account of obligations, explaining whether none, some, or all can be overridden in particular circumstances. Much progress has been made, but the debate is apt to continue.

Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae , Thomas Gilby et al . (trans.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964–1975.
Blackburn, Simon, 1996, “Dilemmas: Dithering, Plumping, and Grief,” in Mason (1996): 127–139.
Brink, David, 1994, “Moral Conflict and Its Structure,” The Philosophical Review , 103: 215–247; reprinted in Mason (1996): 102–126.
Coady, C.A.J., 2008. Messy Morality: The Challenge of Politics , New York: Oxford University Press.
Conee, Earl, 1982, “Against Moral Dilemmas,” The Philosophical Review , 91: 87–97; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 239–249.
Dahl, Norman O., 1996, “Morality, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Requirements,” in Mason (1996): 86–101.
Dietz, Alexander, 2022, “Collective Reasons and Agent-Relativity, ” Utilitas , 34: 57–69.
Donagan, Alan, 1977, The Theory of Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1984, “Consistency in Rationalist Moral Systems,” The Journal of Philosophy , 81: 291–309; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 271–290.
Edson, Margaret, 1999/1993. Wit , New York: Faber and Faber.
Freedman, Monroe, 1975, Lawyers’ Ethics in an Adversary System , Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Gowans, Christopher W. (editor), 1987, Moral Dilemmas , New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, Joshua, 2013, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them , New York: Penguin Books.
Greenspan, Patricia S., 1983, “Moral Dilemmas and Guilt,” Philosophical Studies , 43: 117–125.
–––, 1995, Practical Guilt: Moral Dilemmas, Emotions, and Social Norms , New York: Oxford University Press.
Haidt, Jonathan, 2012, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion , New York: Pantheon.
Hill, Thomas E., Jr., 1996, “Moral Dilemmas, Gaps, and Residues: A Kantian Perspective,” in Mason (1996): 167–198.
Holbo, John, 2002, “Moral Dilemmas and the Logic of Obligation,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 39: 259–274.
Hursthouse, Rosalind, 1999, On Virtue Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 1971/1797, The Doctrine of Virtue: Part II of the Metaphysics of Morals , Mary J. Gregor (trans.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lemmon, E.J., 1962, “Moral Dilemmas,” The Philosophical Review , 70: 139–158; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 101–114.
–––, 1965, “Deontic Logic and the Logic of Imperatives,” Logique et Analyse , 8: 39–71.
Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 1980, “Moral Dilemmas and Consistency,” The Journal of Philosophy , 77: 121–136; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 188–204.
Mason, H.E., (editor), 1996, Moral Dilemmas and Moral Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
McConnell, Terrance, 1978, “Moral Dilemmas and Consistency in Ethics,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 8: 269–287; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 154–173.
–––, 1988, “Interpersonal Moral Conflicts,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 25: 25–35.
–––, 1996, “Moral Residue and Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 36–47.
–––, 2009, “Conflicting Role-Related Obligations in Wit,” in Sandra Shapshay (ed.), Bioethics at the Movies , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mill, John Stuart, 1979/1861, Utilitarianism , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Parrish, John, 2007, Paradoxes of Political Ethics: From Dirty Hands to Invisible Hands , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plato, The Republic , trans, Paul Shorey, in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1930.
Ross, W.D., 1930, The Right and the Good , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1939, The Foundations of Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Santurri, Edmund N. 1987, Perplexity in the Moral Life: Philosophical and Theological Considerations , Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1957/1946, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Trans, Philip Mairet, in Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre , New York: Meridian, 287–311,
–––, 1946, “Dirty Hands,”, in No Exit and Three Other Plays , New York: Vintage Books.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1988, Moral Dilemmas , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Smith, Holly M., 1986, “Moral Realism, Moral Conflict, and Compound Acts,” The Journal of Philosophy , 83: 341–345.
Styron, William, 1980, Sophie’s Choice , New York: Bantam Books.
Taylor, Erin, 2011, “Irreconciliable Differences,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 50: 181–192.
Tessman, Lisa, 2015, Moral Failure: On the Impossible Demands of Morality , New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomason, Richmond, 1981, “Deontic Logic as Founded on Tense Logic,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic , Dordrecht: Reidel, 165–176.
Trigg, Roger, 1971, “Moral Conflict,” Mind , 80: 41–55.
Vallentyne, Peter, 1987, “Prohibition Dilemmas and Deontic Logic,” Logique et Analyse , 30: 113–122.
–––, 1989, “Two Types of Moral Dilemmas,” Erkenntnis , 30: 301–318.
Van Fraassen, Bas, 1973, “Values and the Heart’s Command,” The Journal of Philosophy , 70: 5–19; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 138–153.
Walzer, Michael, 1973, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 2: 160–180.
Williams, Bernard, 1965, “Ethical Consistency,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 39: 103–124; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 115–137.
Zimmerman, Michael J., 1988, An Essay on Moral Responsibility , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
–––, 1996, The Concept of Moral Obligation , New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Lyle V., 1985, “Moral Dilemmas, Deliberation, and Choice,” The Journal of Philosophy 82: 139–162,
Atkinson, R.F., 1965, “Consistency in Ethics,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 39: 125–138.
Baumrin, Bernard H., and Peter Lupu, 1984, “A Common Occurrence: Conflicting Duties,” Metaphilosophy , 15: 77–90.
Bradley, F. H., 1927, Ethical Studies , 2 nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brink, David, 1989, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bronaugh, Richard, 1975, “Utilitarian Alternatives,” Ethics , 85: 175–178.
Carey, Toni Vogel, 1985, “What Conflict of Duty is Not,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 66: 204–215.
Castañeda, Hector-Neri, 1974, The Structure of Morality , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
–––, 1978, “Conflicts of Duties and Morality,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 38: 564–574.
Chisholm, Roderick M., 1963, “Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic,” Analysis , 24: 33–36.
Conee, Earl, 1989, “Why Moral Dilemmas are Impossible,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 26(2): 133–141.
Dahl, Norman O., 1974, “‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’ and Deontic Logic,” Philosophia , 4: 485–511.
DeCew, Judith Wagner, 1990, “Moral Conflicts and Ethical Relativism,” Ethics , 101: 27–41.
Donagan, Alan, 1996, “Moral Dilemmas, Genuine and Spurious: A Comparative Anatomy,” Ethics, 104: 7–21; reprinted in Mason (1996): 11–22.
Feldman, Fred, 1986, Doing the Best We Can , Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Foot, Philippa, 1983, “Moral Realism and Moral Dilemma,” The Journal of Philosophy , 80: 379–398; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 271–290.
Gewirth, Alan, 1978, Reason and Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldman, Holly Smith, 1976, “Dated Rightness and Moral Imperfection,” The Philosophical Review , 85: 449–487, [See also, Holly Smith.]
Gowans, Christopher W., 1989, “Moral Dilemmas and Prescriptivism,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 26: 187–197.
–––, 1994, Innocence Lost: An Examination of Inescapable Wrongdoing , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1996, “Moral Theory, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Responsibility,” in Mason (1996): 199–215.
Griffin, James, 1977, “Are There Incommensurable Values?” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 7: 39–59.
Guttenplan, Samuel, 1979–80, “Moral Realism and Moral Dilemma,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 80: 61–80.
Hansson, Sven O., 1998, “Should We Avoid Moral Dilemmas?,” Journal of Value Inquiry , 32: 407–416.
Hare, R.M., 1952, The Language of Morals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1963, Freedom and Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1981, Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Methods, and Point , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, Thomas E., Jr, 1983, “Moral Purity and the Lesser Evil,” The Monist , 66: 213–232.
–––, 1992, “A Kantian Perspective on Moral Rules,” Philosophical Perspectives , 6: 285–304.
Hoag, Robert W., 1983, “Mill on Conflicting Moral Obligations,” Analysis , 43: 49–54.
Howard, Kenneth W., 1977, “Must Public Hands Be Dirty?” The Journal of Value Inquiry , 11: 29–40.
Kant, Immanuel, 1965/1797, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals , John Ladd (trans.), Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Kolenda, Konstantin, 1975, “Moral Conflict and Universalizability,” Philosophy , 50: 460–465.
Ladd, John, 1958, “Remarks on Conflict of Obligations,” The Journal of Philosophy , 55: 811–819.
Lebus, Bruce, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas: Why They Are Hard to Solve,” Philosophical Investigations , 13: 110–125.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas,” Philosophical and Phenomenological Research , 50: 367–382.
Mallock, David, 1967, “Moral Dilemmas and Moral Failure,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 45: 159–178,
Mann, William E., 1991, “Jephthah’s Plight: Moral Dilemmas and Theism,” Philosophical Perspectives , 5: 617–647.
Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 1996, “More about Moral Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 23–35.
Marino, Patricia, 2001, “Moral Dilemmas, Collective Responsibility, and Moral Progress,” Philosophical Studies , 104: 203–225.
Mason, H.E., 1996, “Responsibilities and Principles: Reflections on the Sources of Moral Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 216–235.
McConnell, Terrance, 1976, “Moral Dilemmas and Requiring the Impossible,” Philosophical Studies , 29: 409–413.
–––, 1981, “Moral Absolutism and the Problem of Hard Cases,” Journal of Religious Ethics , 9: 286–297.
–––, 1981, “Moral Blackmail,” Ethics , 91: 544–567.
–––, 1981, “Utilitarianism and Conflict Resolution,” Logique et Analyse , 24: 245–257.
–––, 1986, “More on Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy , 82: 345–351.
–––, 1993, “Dilemmas and Incommensurateness,” The Journal of Value Inquiry , 27: 247–252.
McDonald, Julie M., 1995, “The Presumption in Favor of Requirement Conflicts,” Journal of Social Philosophy , 26: 49–58.
Mothersill, Mary, 1996, “The Moral Dilemmas Debate,” in Mason (1996): 66–85.
Nagel, Thomas, “War and Massacre,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1: 123–144.
–––, 1979, “The Fragmentation of Value,” in Mortal Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press; reprinted in Gowans (1987): 174–187.
Nozick, Robert, 1968, “Moral Complications and Moral Structures,” Natural Law Forum , 13: 1–50.
Paske, Gerald H., 1990, “Genuine Moral Dilemmas and the Containment of Incoherence,” The Journal of Value Inquiry , 24: 315–323.
Pietroski, Paul, 1993, “Prima Facie Obligations, Ceteris Paribus Laws in Moral Theory,” Ethics , 103: 489–515.
Price, Richard, 1974/1787, A Review of the Principal Questions of Morals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prior, A.N., 1954, “The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation,” Mind , 63: 64–65.
Quinn, Philip, 1978, Divine Commands and Moral Requirements , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 1986, “Moral Obligation, Religious Demand, and Practical Conflict,” in Robert Audi and William Wainwright (eds.), Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 195–212.
Rabinowicz, Wlodzimierz, 1978, “Utilitarianism and Conflicting Obligations,” Theoria , 44: 1924.
Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Railton, Peter, 1992, “Pluralism, Determinacy, and Dilemma,” Ethics , 102: 720–742.
–––, 1996, “The Diversity of Moral Dilemma,” in Mason (1996): 140–166.
Sartorius, Rolf, 1975, Individual Conduct and Social Norms: A Utilitarian Account of Social Union and the Rule of Law , Encino, CA: Dickenson Publishing.
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey, 1986, “Deontic Logic and the Priority of Moral Theory,” Noûs , 20: 179–197.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1984, “‘Ought’ Conversationally Implies ‘Can’,” The Philosophical Review , 93: 249–261.
–––, 1985, “Moral Dilemmas and Incomparability,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 22: 321–329.
–––, 1987, “Moral Dilemmas and ‘Ought and Ought Not’,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 127–139.
–––, 1987, “Moral Realisms and Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy , 84: 263–276.
–––, 1996, “Moral Dilemmas and Rights,” in Mason (1996): 48–65.
Slote, Michael, 1985, “Utilitarianism, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Cost,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 22: 161–168.
Statman, Daniel, 1996, “Hard Cases and Moral Dilemmas,” Law and Philosophy , 15: 117–148.
Steiner, Hillel, 1973, “Moral Conflict and Prescriptivism,” Mind , 82: 586–591.
Stocker, Michael, 1971, “’Ought’ and ‘Can’,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 49: 303–316.
–––, 1986, “Dirty Hands and Conflicts of Values and of Desires in Aristotle’s Ethics,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 67: 36–61.
–––, 1987, “Moral Conflicts: What They Are and What They Show,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 104–123.
–––, 1990, Plural and Conflicting Values , New York: Oxford University Press.
Strasser, Mark, 1987, “Guilt, Regret, and Prima Facie Duties,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 25: 133–146.
Swank, Casey, 1985, “Reasons, Dilemmas, and the Logic of ‘Ought’,” Analysis , 45: 111–116.
Tännsjö, Torbjörn, 1985, “Moral Conflict and Moral Realism,” The Journal of Philosophy , 82: 113–117.
Thomason, Richmond, 1981, “Deontic Logic and the Role of Freedom in Moral Deliberation,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic , Dordrecht: Reidel, 177–186.
Vallentyne, Peter, 1992, “Moral Dilemmas and Comparative Conceptions of Morality,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 30: 117–124.
Williams, Bernard, 1966, “Consistency and Realism,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement), 40: 1–22.
–––, 1972, Morality: An Introduction to Ethics , New York: Harper & Row.
Zimmerman, Michael J., 1987, “Remote Obligation,” American Philosophical Quarterly , 24: 199–205.
–––, 1988, “Lapses and Dilemmas,” Philosophical Papers , 17: 103–112.
–––, 1990, “Where Did I Go Wrong?” Philosophical Studies , 58: 83–106.
–––, 1992, “Cooperation and Doing the Best One Can,” Philosophical Studies , 65: 283–304.
–––, 1995, “Prima Facie Obligation and Doing the Best One Can,” Philosophical Studies , 78: 87–123.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Acknowledgments

I thank Michael Zimmerman for helpful comments on the initial version of this essay, and two reviewers for suggestions on the most recent instantiation.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Ethics and Morality

Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person’s choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the individual to include what is determined to be right, and wrong, for a community or society at large.

Ethics is concerned with rights, responsibilities, use of language, what it means to live an ethical life, and how people make moral decisions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts and reactions. It's a subjective concept, and many people have strong and stubborn beliefs about what's right and wrong that can place them in direct contrast to the moral beliefs of others. Yet even though morals may vary from person to person, religion to religion, and culture to culture, many have been found to be universal, stemming from basic human emotions.

The Science of Being Virtuous
Understanding Amorality
The Stages of Moral Development

Those who are considered morally good are said to be virtuous, holding themselves to high ethical standards, while those viewed as morally bad are thought of as wicked, sinful, or even criminal. Morality was a key concern of Aristotle, who first studied questions such as “What is moral responsibility?” and “What does it take for a human being to be virtuous?”

We used to think that people are born with a blank slate, but research has shown that people have an innate sense of morality . Of course, parents and the greater society can certainly nurture and develop morality and ethics in children.

Humans are ethical and moral regardless of religion and God. People are not fundamentally good nor are they fundamentally evil. However, a Pew study found that atheists are much less likely than theists to believe that there are "absolute standards of right and wrong." In effect, atheism does not undermine morality, but the atheist’s conception of morality may depart from that of the traditional theist.

Animals are like humans—and humans are animals, after all. Many studies have been conducted across animal species, and more than 90 percent of their behavior is what can be identified as “prosocial” or positive. Plus, you won’t find mass warfare in animals as you do in humans. Hence, in a way, you can say that animals are more moral than humans.

The examination of moral psychology involves the study of moral philosophy but the field is more concerned with how a person comes to make a right or wrong decision, rather than what sort of decisions he or she should have made. Character, reasoning, responsibility, and altruism , among other areas, also come into play, as does the development of morality.

The seven deadly sins were first enumerated in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I, and represent the sweep of immoral behavior. Also known as the cardinal sins or seven deadly vices, they are vanity, jealousy , anger , laziness, greed, gluttony, and lust. People who demonstrate these immoral behaviors are often said to be flawed in character. Some modern thinkers suggest that virtue often disguises a hidden vice; it just depends on where we tip the scale .

An amoral person has no sense of, or care for, what is right or wrong. There is no regard for either morality or immorality. Conversely, an immoral person knows the difference, yet he does the wrong thing, regardless. The amoral politician, for example, has no conscience and makes choices based on his own personal needs; he is oblivious to whether his actions are right or wrong.

One could argue that the actions of Wells Fargo, for example, were amoral if the bank had no sense of right or wrong. In the 2016 fraud scandal, the bank created fraudulent savings and checking accounts for millions of clients, unbeknownst to them. Of course, if the bank knew what it was doing all along, then the scandal would be labeled immoral.

Everyone tells white lies to a degree, and often the lie is done for the greater good. But the idea that a small percentage of people tell the lion’s share of lies is the Pareto principle, the law of the vital few. It is 20 percent of the population that accounts for 80 percent of a behavior.

We do know what is right from wrong . If you harm and injure another person, that is wrong. However, what is right for one person, may well be wrong for another. A good example of this dichotomy is the religious conservative who thinks that a woman’s right to her body is morally wrong. In this case, one’s ethics are based on one’s values; and the moral divide between values can be vast.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg established his stages of moral development in 1958. This framework has led to current research into moral psychology. Kohlberg's work addresses the process of how we think of right and wrong and is based on Jean Piaget's theory of moral judgment for children. His stages include pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional, and what we learn in one stage is integrated into the subsequent stages.

The pre-conventional stage is driven by obedience and punishment . This is a child's view of what is right or wrong. Examples of this thinking: “I hit my brother and I received a time-out.” “How can I avoid punishment?” “What's in it for me?”

The conventional stage is when we accept societal views on rights and wrongs. In this stage people follow rules with a good boy and nice girl orientation. An example of this thinking: “Do it for me.” This stage also includes law-and-order morality: “Do your duty.”

The post-conventional stage is more abstract: “Your right and wrong is not my right and wrong.” This stage goes beyond social norms and an individual develops his own moral compass, sticking to personal principles of what is ethical or not.

personal experience about having a moral dilemma essay

Eating disorder treatment is rife with sensitive and ethical treatment considerations. Adding telehealth therapy to the mix creates new opportunities and potential risks.

A holistic, compassionate view of who and what we wear raises wide-ranging ethical questions about social justice, freedom, human and nonhuman well-being, and sustainability.

Personal Perspective: Corporations' legal protections tend to overwhelm the struggle for social justice. It takes a brave person, a hero, to go against the odds.

On current vaccine controversies and the challenges confronting low-to-middle-income countries.

Why Michael Cohen is apologizing and atoning for his mistakes in the New York Supreme Court case against Donald J. Trump.

A Personal Perspective: When we choose which ideas should be given the right of freedom of expression and which shouldn't, democracy suffers for all of us.

However well-intended, our empathy and support can have a paradoxical effect. We can fail to take others seriously or appreciate their suffering as a response to moral demands.

Personal Perspective: Life can be more than continually grabbing as much as we can for ourselves. Let's fight back with courtesy and respect the needs of others.

As a father of an autistic child and a researcher on neurodiversity, I propose we model political interactions after productive relationships with neurodivergent family members.

Debt is incredibly common, yet we often do not discuss its impact. Moralizing debt can create isolation and shameful feelings.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Students cultivate practical wisdom by working through a moral dilemma and deciding on a course of action.

Reflecting on Moral Dilemmas with Practical Wisdom

Students will develop practical wisdom by reading and reflecting on a moral dilemma with a set of guiding questions. Question sets prompt students to draw on past knowledge, understand the current context, and weigh various options up against guiding principles in order to determine next steps.

Planning For It

When you might use this practice.

To encourage greater self-awareness
To cultivate practical wisdom in students
To encourage empathy
At the start of the school year

Time Required

Upper Elementary
Middle School
High School

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Practice working effectively in groups
Reflect on what they have learned from other students
Practice sharing their own thoughts, feelings, and/or life stories

Additional Supports

Making Practices Culturally Responsive
Adapting Practices for Students with Special Needs
Making Classrooms and Schools Trauma-Informed and Healing-Centered

Character Strengths

Practical Wisdom

SEL Competencies

Self-Awareness
Social Awareness
Relationship Skills

Mindfulness Components

Focused Attention
Open Awareness
Non-Judgment

How To Do It

Reflection before the practice.

Consider a moral dilemma that you and/or a friend may be trying to address. As you think about the actions to be taken, consider the following questions: What past knowledge might inform your response to this situation? What might a friend or person you respect do in this situation? What emotions are you experiencing and how might they be clouding your thinking about next steps? What other factors might be influencing your thinking about the situation?
Consider the potential actions you could take and what the consequences would be. Is there a solution or action that might best meet the needs of all individuals involved? What virtues might be relevant to this situation

Instructions

Introduce students to the concept of practical wisdom by sharing the following definition with them:

“Practical wisdom refers to your ability to know what the right thing to do is , know how to do the right thing, and to have the will to actually do the right thing across various situations.”

Explain to students that practical wisdom is important because it can help them navigate difficult decisions in ways that support their longer term goals and their ability to maintain strong, positive relationships. Thus, the goal is to practice the skills that can facilitate the development of practical wisdom by reflecting on the provided questions below as they decide how to respond to a moral dilemma.

Present students with a few moral dilemma scenarios. For examples of specific dilemmas look at the following links:

https://www.theclassroom.com/moral-dilemma-scenarios-children-8434575.html
https://studylib.net/doc/7725442/ethical-dilemma-scenarios-for-students

Have students break up into groups. Assign a dilemma to each group, or invite students to choose one dilemma to address.

Ask each group to read the dilemma and discuss the questions from each of the three categories below:

What lessons have your parents or teachers taught you that could help you think about how you might respond in this situation? What values have they encouraged you to develop?
Think of your closest friends, what qualities do they display, which you admire and how might they respond to this situation?
Have you or a close friend ever encountered a similar situation? How did you or your friend respond to the situation? What was the outcome? What did you learn from your or your friend’s experience?
Have you ever responded to a similar situation without much thinking? Was that useful? Why might taking sometime to think through your response be helpful?
What are some contextual factors that might influence your response?
How might you work to process your emotions, so that they don’t override your thinking and completely sway your decision?
Who might you turn to, to get some input on the situation? What might that person say to you?
Consider what actions you might take, write down what would be the consequences of each of those actions for all individuals involved in the situation? How severe are the consequences? Is harm being caused?
Are there virtues that you value which are relevant to this situation? What are they and how might they be applied?
Take a moment to consider why each person involved is engaged in a particular behavior.
Is there a solution or action that might best meet the needs of all individuals involved?
What might be the impact of your decision in the short-term?
What about in the long-term? How might you take this into account?

After the discussion, and if time permits, have each group present their dilemma to the class and discuss what they will do and why. End the activity by having students write a short reflection about what they learned through this process.

Claire Briggs, Ph.D., Middlesbrough Psychology Service, Middlesbrough Council

Reflection After the Practice

Was there anything that surprised you as your students shared influences to their thinking and potential responses to the dilemma (e.g., cultural values that were unfamiliar to you)? How might their responses inform your capacity to better support them in developing practical wisdom?
Have you noticed a difference in student’s behavior, particularly in their responses to moral dilemmas?

The Research Behind It

Evidence that it works.

Social cognitive theories suggest that character develops through our day-to-day lived experiences, which are stored in our brains, providing us with helpful information that informs our responses to dilemmas as they arise. Such theories suggest that giving adolescents’ opportunities to develop reflective thinking skills can increase their practical wisdom. Practical wisdom refers to one’s ability to know what the right response is at the right time, particularly when faced with difficult situations.

In one study , researchers interviewed students between the ages of 12-15 to better understand how they approach decision-making, particularly when faced with moral dilemmas. Researchers were particularly interested in understanding what kinds of thinking skills needed to be developed and practiced so that they become more internalized and intuitive to students—or how students develop “practical wisdom.”

Researchers found that there are three interrelated processes that occur as students decide how to respond to a moral dilemma. Specifically, students activate and draw on existing knowledge, they pay attention to factors within the immediate context, and they weigh consequences against guiding principles to judge the best course of action.

Why Does It Matter?

Often, teachers focus on developing virtues in students like honesty, generosity, and forgiveness. Yet, many of the decisions we face in life are complicated and can often pit virtues against each other.

For example, a student may wonder whether to tell the teacher that his friend cheated on an exam or whether to remain loyal to his friend. Practical wisdom allows students to navigate dilemmas like these more thoughtfully, helping students understand what action is best in a particular situation—for all individuals involved. Thus, as students develop practical wisdom, it will help them navigate moral dilemmas with greater attentiveness to all the factors in play so that they can make values-based decisions that are responsive to a given context and the people involved.

GGIE Online Courses for Educators

Do you want to dive deeper into the science behind our GGIE practices? Enroll in one of our online courses for educators!

12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers

Writing Essays
Writing Research Papers
English Grammar
M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
B.A., History, Armstrong State University

Writing a persuasive essay requires identifying interesting ethical topics, and these options might inspire you to create a powerful and engaging essay, position paper , or speech for your next assignment.

Should Teens Have Plastic Surgery?

Good looks are highly prized in society. You can see advertisements everywhere urging you to buy products that will supposedly enhance your appearance. While many products are topical, plastic surgery is probably the ultimate game-changer. Going under the knife to enhance your looks can be a quick fix and help you achieve the look you desire. It also carries risks and can have lifelong consequences. Consider whether you think teens—who are still developing into mature individuals—should have the right to make such a big decision at such a young age, or if their parents should be able to decide for them.

Would You Tell If You Saw a Popular Kid Bullying?

Bullying is a big problem in schools and even in society in general. But it can be difficult to show courage, step up—and step in—if you see a popular kid bullying someone at school. Would you report it if you saw this happening? Why or why not?

Would You Speak Up If Your Friend Abused an Animal?

Animal abuse by youngsters can foreshadow more violent acts as these individuals grow up. Speaking up might save the animal pain and suffering today, and it might steer that person away from more violent acts in the future. But would you have the courage to do so? Why or why not?

Would You Tell If You Saw a Friend Cheating on a Test?

Courage can come in subtle forms, and that can include reporting seeing someone cheat on a test. Cheating on a test might not seem like such a big deal; perhaps you've cheated on a test yourself. But it is against the policies of schools and universities worldwide. If you saw someone cheating, would you speak up and tell the teacher? What if it were your buddy cheating and telling might cost you a friendship? Explain your stance.

Should News Stories Slant Toward What People Want to Hear?

There is much debate over whether the news should be unbiased or allow commentary. Newspapers, radios, and news television stations are businesses, just as much as a grocery store or online retailers. They need customers to survive, and that means appealing to what their customers want to hear or see. Slanting reports toward popular opinions could increase ratings and readership, in turn saving newspapers and news shows, as well as jobs. But is this practice ethical? What do you think?

Would You Tell If Your Best Friend Had a Drink at the Prom?

Most schools have strict rules about drinking at the prom, but many students still engage in the practice. After all, they'll be graduating soon. If you saw a friend imbibing, would you tell or look the other way? Why?

Should Football Coaches Be Paid More Than Professors?

Football often brings in more money than any other single activity or program a school offers, including academic classes. In the corporate world, if a business is profitable, the CEO and those who contributed to the success are often rewarded handsomely. With that in mind, shouldn't it be the same in academia? Should top football coaches get paid more than top professors? Why or why not?

Should Politics and Church Be Separate?

Candidates often invoke religion when they're campaigning. It's generally a good way to attract votes. But should the practice be discouraged? The U.S. Constitution, after all, dictates that there should be a separation of church and state in this country. What do you think and why?

Would You Speak Up If You Heard an Ugly Ethnic Statement at a Party Filled With Popular Kids?

As in the previous examples, it can be hard to speak up, especially when an incident involves popular kids. Would you have the courage to say something and risk the ire of the "in" crowd? Who would you tell?

Should Assisted Suicides Be Allowed for Terminally Ill Patients?

Some countries, like the Netherlands, allow assisted suicides , as do some U.S. states. Should "mercy killing" be legal for terminally ill patients who are suffering from great physical pain? What about patients whose diseases will negatively impact their families? Why or why not?

Should a Student's Ethnicity Be a Consideration for College Acceptance?

There has been a long-standing debate about the role ethnicity should play in college acceptance. Proponents of affirmative action argue that underrepresented groups should be given a leg up. Opponents say that all college candidates should be judged on their merits alone. What do you think and why?

Should Companies Gather Information About Their Customers?

Information privacy is a big and growing issue. Every time you log onto the internet and visit an online retailer, news company, or social media site, companies gather information about you. Should they have the right to do so, or should the practice be banned? Why do you think so? Explain your answer.

How to Ask and Answer Basic English Questions
100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
50 Argumentative Essay Topics
100 Persuasive Essay Topics
49 Opinion Writing Prompts for Students
Fun March Writing Prompts for Journaling
Engaging Writing Prompts for 3rd Graders
24 Journal Prompts for Creative Writing in the Elementary Classroom
9 Common Medical School Interview Questions and How to Answer Them
Second Grade Writing Prompts
May Writing Prompts
Writing Prompts for 7th Grade
January Writing Prompts
October Writing Prompts
April Writing Prompts
25 Essay Topics for American Government Classes

The Ethical Dilemma – How to Make the Right Decision Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

My ethical dilemma.

The issue of ethical dilemma is something human beings cannot let alone. It is evident that it remains part of their life. Someone finds himself in such a dilemma. Most of the time it is proper to make the right decision when in such a situation.

Personally, I believe the right decision always lies with your conscience. When in an ethical dilemma, making the right decision goes a long way in measuring someone’s ability to be responsible in future (Carter, C. & Clegg, S, pp 125).

Sometime last week I was faced with an ethical dilemma which made me choose between friendship and truth. I was at home watching movies with one of my schoolmates. Then a kitten jumped through the window and in to the house. I did not mind as am used to seeing it in our home most of the time.

It belonged to the next door neighbor. My friend got so excited and even held it in his palm. He kept on telling me how cute it was. He went to the extent of saying he will leave with it, I thought he was joking. In the evening, I decided to see him off. He begged me to allow him go home with the kitten and bring it back tomorrow.

I did not want to allow him do this, as I knew the first place our neighbor could come looking for her kitten was our home. We argued for a long time, and at last I allowed him to leave with it just to please him because he was my friend.

As we were walking down the road the kitten jumped off my friend’s palm straight into a truck’s path. It was knocked down and died on the spot. My friend begged me not to tell the owner what had happened. He even made me swear, and because he was my pal I accepted everything just not to hurt him.

When I went home that evening, I found my neighbor at my place. I was asked whether I had seen the kitten. I did not know what to say. If I told the truth, I was going to lose my friend. If i told a lie, I would save my friendship but I could not stand the guilt of lie to my parents. I also believed my neighbor needed to know what happened to her kitten. After a lot of thinking, i decided to tell the truth.

It is noteworthy that I acted in the right manner, as I could not tell a lie just to protect my friend. He acted unethically, and I should not do the same by protecting him. I find it so uncomfortable, when I have to swear not to do something then I end up not honoring my oath.

In this situation, I could not hide the truth when I knew clearly what consequences I was going to face. I knew I could still talk to my friend and tell him why I chose to stick to the truth. I could not allow my friend to manipulate me in to tainting my ethical integrity (Trevino, L & Nelson, K, pp 7).

I believe when someone is in an ethical predicament he is supposed to make a decision that will stand the taste of time. Making decisions just to suit that particular time, and external factors may not work appropriately.

When one makes such a decision he must be affected to some extent. If I could have protected my friend, I could always feel the guilty whenever in the presence of my neighbor. I also could have branded my self a dishonest person (Trevino, L & Nelson, K, pp 9).

Carter, Chris. & Clegg, Stewart. Business ethics as practice: representation, reflexivity and performance . Heltenham.UK. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007 125

Trevino, Linda & Nelson, Katherine. Managing Business Ethics . New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2010 7-10

A Good Life Is Gratitude, Meaning, and Love
Discovering Faith: The Search for Truth and Certainty
"The Ways We Lie" by Stephanie Ericsson
Leadership and Collaboration for a Student
This Capstone Class: Practice of Ethical and Social Responsibility
An Adventure with My Pet Pit-Bull Dog “Tiger”
Sense of Humor: How Does It Help?
Sex Marriage: Personal Opinion
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 12). The Ethical Dilemma - How to Make the Right Decision. https://ivypanda.com/essays/business-writing-and-critical-thinking/

"The Ethical Dilemma - How to Make the Right Decision." IvyPanda , 12 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/business-writing-and-critical-thinking/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Ethical Dilemma - How to Make the Right Decision'. 12 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Ethical Dilemma - How to Make the Right Decision." May 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/business-writing-and-critical-thinking/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Ethical Dilemma - How to Make the Right Decision." May 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/business-writing-and-critical-thinking/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Ethical Dilemma - How to Make the Right Decision." May 12, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/business-writing-and-critical-thinking/.

IMAGES

Solving a Moral Dilemma Personal Essay on Samploon.com
≫ Personal Experience of Ethical Dilemma in Workplace Free Essay Sample
Moral Dilemma Essay
My Personal Dilemma.docx
A. Your Personal Experience About Moral Dilemma
Personal moral dilemma essay in 2021

VIDEO

The Emotional Dilemma,” my deeply personal journey of reconnecting with God, #resilience #truestory
ESSAY ETHICS & MORALITY
The personal essay that got me into Duke University
Moral Dilemmas
Ethical Dilemma in the Counseling
Will Paytm CRASH or Make a COMEBACK? Why is RBI hitting Paytm? :Business case study

COMMENTS

Essay on Personal Ethical Dilemma
An ethical dilemma is best defined as a "decision-making problem between two possible moral imperatives". One dilemma in particular that I would like to share involves my aunt facing a serious ethical decision in her workplace. My aunt is a social worker and a fundamental part of her job is ethical awareness.
Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma: 7 sample answers
7 sample answers to "Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma" interview question. I faced a big one in my last job of a production manager. We were negotiating with several suppliers of clothes. One factory from Bangladesh gave us by far the best offer, and on paper they passed all environmental checks.
221 Ethical Dilemma Topics & Essay Samples
221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples. An ethical dilemma essay has become an essential part of education for many professions that involve working with people. Below, we've collected topics for writing a paper on this subject. The concepts of ethics and moral dilemmas have originated long ago.
Reflection Essay On Moral Dilemma
1569 Words. 7 Pages. Open Document. Moral dilemma's and our decision are based upon to what we see as experience, interpreting and also studying or analyzing our decisions before we act. We may never know what could happen if we just stand by and let bad things happen. I went to a Cumberland Farms one night to get a coffee.
Free Ethical Dilemma Essay Examples & Topic Ideas
Personal Experience: Reflect on personal ethical dilemmas you've encountered, as they can provide unique insights. Relevance: Ensure your topic is relevant to the prompt and highlights the complexity of ethical decision-making. Moral Ambiguity: Choose a topic that involves conflicting values or principles, making the dilemma truly ethical.
An Overview of The Ethical Dilemma in a Personal Case
Ethics is the result of human interpretation of right and wrong. One's ethical outlook will drive their behavior in a multitude of different situations. However, not everyone forms their ethical scheme in the same ways. Various viewpoints about religion, society, and good and evil itself will directly impact the creation of ethics in an ...
Moral Dilemmas: What Are They and How Can They Be Solved?
Stage 1. Understand the situation. Before making any decision in the face of the moral dilemma you're going through, you must reflect and understand the situation you're in. Without this understanding, you may end up making the wrong choice. Analyze the dilemma accurately, completely, and reasonably. The following tips can help you at this ...
101 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Inside This Article. 101 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. Ethical dilemmas are situations in which individuals are faced with conflicting moral choices. These dilemmas can arise in a variety of contexts, from personal relationships to professional settings. Writing an essay exploring ethical dilemmas can help you develop critical ...
Learn How to Write an Ethical Dilemma Essay on Trust My Paper
An ethical dilemma is facing a decision that, in making that decision, violates a moral principle in order to follow another one. A simple and often used example of a moral dilemma is this: You are on a ship that is sinking, and you must get into a lifeboat. That lifeboat can only hold 10 people without sinking, and there are 11 of you that ...
Moral Dilemmas
Opponents of moral dilemmas have generally held that the crucial principles in the two arguments above are conceptually true, and therefore we must deny the possibility of genuine dilemmas. (See, for example, Conee 1982 and Zimmerman 1996.) Most of the debate, from all sides, has focused on the second argument.
Personal Essay: An Ethical Dilemma
829 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Show More. I was faced with an ethical dilemma that I will never forget. I was 11-years old, and my best friend Hollie and I wanted to go out to eat, so we begged my parents to take us to McDonalds. After talking my parent into taking us, we talked them into letting us stay ...
Moral Dilemmas Of My Life
901 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. I have faced many moral dilemmas in my life thus far in which I had to make tough decisions that to this day I hope allowed for the best possible outcome. However, for the purpose of this paper I would like to reflect on one of someone else 's moral dilemmas. I first knew Denman in the Army while we were ...
Essay on Moral Dilemma
1668 Words. 7 Pages. Open Document. Moral Dilemma. Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading.
Ethics and Morality
Morality, Ethics, Evil, Greed. To put it simply, ethics represents the moral code that guides a person's choices and behaviors throughout their life. The idea of a moral code extends beyond the ...
Reflecting on Moral Dilemmas with Practical Wisdom
Students will develop practical wisdom by reading and reflecting on a moral dilemma with a set of guiding questions. Question sets prompt students to draw on past knowledge, understand the current context, and weigh various options up against guiding principles in order to determine next steps. Level: Upper Elementary, Middle School, High ...
Ethics
Moral dilemmas refer to conflicts involving choices that have moral implications. study m/academy/less on/moral- dilemma- definition- examples- quiz A moral dilemma is a conflict situation in which the choice one makes causes a moral harm, which cannot be restlessly repaired. https://embassy. science/wiki/Th eme:17d406f9- 0b0f-4325-aa2d- 2fe186d5ff
12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers
40 Writing Topics for Argumentative and Persuasive Essays. By Richard Nordquist. Courage can come in subtle forms, and that can include reporting seeing someone cheat on a test. Cheating on a test might not seem like such a big deal; perhaps you've cheated on a test yourself. But it is against the policies of schools and universities worldwide.
The Ethical Dilemma
Introduction. The issue of ethical dilemma is something human beings cannot let alone. It is evident that it remains part of their life. Someone finds himself in such a dilemma. Most of the time it is proper to make the right decision when in such a situation. We will write a custom essay on your topic. 810 writers online.
My Personal Ethical Dilemmas
761 Words | 2 Pages. First of all, my personal criteria for making ethical decisions is really close to Michael Josephson's 11 core ethical values that mentioned in Gow Pettey's chapter 11: Ethical Decision Making. The 11 core ethical values are: honesty, integrity, promise keeping, fidelity and loyalty, fairness, caring for others, respect ...
Moral Dilemmas Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Moral Dilemma of Abortion General. Any objective set of moral criteria must include: (1) the obligation not to cause pain unnecessarily to another; (2) the consideration of fetal survivability; and (3) recognition that a fetus undoubtedly becomes a living person at some point prior to full-term birth.
My Personal Dilemma.docx
My Personal Dilemma From the most important of my moral experiences, I faced a lot of moral and ethical dilemmas, which imposed me to choose between to do the good things or the bad things, to stand firm about my principles in my life in any kind of situation that I encounter. Having that desire that I choose the right decision that will develop me to be better and will hopefully guide me in ...
Essay Sample on Moral Dilemma in Relationships: My Own Research
Moral dilemmas distinguish themselves from other forms of dilemma in that the agent feels obliged to execute each of two or more actions; the agent is capable of executing each of those actions; but he cannot carry out both (or more) of the actions (Rachels & Rachels, 2006). Consequently, the agent risks moral failure no matter what he does.

Interview questions answered: Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma

7 sample answers to “Describe a time when you faced an ethical dilemma” interview question

Ethical dilemma examples for students

An Overview of The Ethical Dilemma in a Personal Case

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Ethical Dilemma

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Moral Dilemmas: What Are They and How Can They Be Solved?

101 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

TOOLS FOR WRITING – THE ETHICAL DILEMMA ESSAY

Sample Ethical Dilemma Essay

Best ethical dilemma essay topics:

External links

Bibliography

Moral Dilemmas

1. Examples

Acknowledgments

Support SEP

Ethics and Morality

Reflecting on Moral Dilemmas with Practical Wisdom

Planning For It

Time Required

Learning Objectives

Additional Supports

Character Strengths

SEL Competencies

Mindfulness Components

How To Do It

Instructions

Reflection After the Practice

The Research Behind It

Why Does It Matter?

GGIE Online Courses for Educators

12 Interesting Ethical Topics for Essay Papers

Should Teens Have Plastic Surgery?

Would You Tell If You Saw a Popular Kid Bullying?

Would You Speak Up If Your Friend Abused an Animal?

Would You Tell If You Saw a Friend Cheating on a Test?

Should News Stories Slant Toward What People Want to Hear?

Would You Tell If Your Best Friend Had a Drink at the Prom?

Should Football Coaches Be Paid More Than Professors?

Should Politics and Church Be Separate?

Would You Speak Up If You Heard an Ugly Ethnic Statement at a Party Filled With Popular Kids?

Should Assisted Suicides Be Allowed for Terminally Ill Patients?

Should a Student's Ethnicity Be a Consideration for College Acceptance?

Should Companies Gather Information About Their Customers?

The Ethical Dilemma – How to Make the Right Decision Essay

Introduction

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS