Lesson 3: MORAL DILEMMA

Moral dilemmas are situations in which the decision-maker must consider two or more moral
values or duties but can only honor one of them. Thus, the individual will violate at least one important
moral concern, regardless of the decision. This chapter draws a distinction between moral dilemmas.
Thus are situations in which the tension is between moral values or duties that are, more or less, on
equal footing. In a real dilemma, the choice is between a wrong and another, roughly equal wrong.
Hence, there are also situations in which the decision-maker has a moral duty to act in one way but is
tempted or pressured to act in another way. In a false dilemma, the choice is actually between a right
and a wrong.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After studying this chapter, the students should be able to:

1. Identify and describe a moral experience;
2. Classify the three types of dilemmas and Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral development; and
3. Write a moral dilemma based on their own experience.

LECTURE NOTES

The concept of Moral Dilemmas

Do you remember a time when you had to make a choice and each option was equally
unpleasant? Perhaps you lied, and something terrible happened, or you were faced with the task of
divulging the truth and being punished for lying. This mess is called a dilemma: a situation that
challenges an agreeable solution. In literature, dilemmas form the central conflict many protagonists
encounter. Many people face all kinds of dilemmas in life, and the choice they make can have long-
lasting impacts. Sometimes these dilemmas have even caused changes in society and history. Thus, a
moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral
reasons for choosing each action.

The three types of Dilemmas

1.) A classic dilemma is a choice between two or more alternatives, in which the outcomes are equally
undesirable, or equally favorable. The dilemma does not typically involve a moral or ethical crisis, but
the person or character’s life may change as a result of their decision. Some examples of classic
dilemmas include:
• Deciding where to go for dinner on a first date
• Uncertainty about which job offer to take
• Wondering whether or not to make the move to a new city
Classic dilemmas are more than simple choices, because they usually prompt the person to think about
the outcomes of the choices. As a result, a character in a story may find themselves on an adventure, in
fear for their lives, or instituting change because of the choice they made in their dilemma.

2. An ethical dilemma arises when a person is forced to decide between two morally sound options, but
they may conflict with the established boundaries of a business, a governmental agency, or the law.
Some ethical dilemmas may involve following the truth versus being loyal to a friend; following the laws
or rules versus having compassion for an individual’s plight; and concerns about an individual person

6
versus the larger impact on a community. An ethical dilemma differs from a moral dilemma because it
very much involves following rules rather than one’s conscience, although one’s conscience can certainly
move an individual to consider breaking the rules. Some examples of ethical dilemmas include:

• A secretary discovers her boss has been laundering money, and she must decide whether or not
to turn him in.
• A doctor refuses to give a terminal patient morphine, but the nurse can see the patient is in
agony.
• While responding to a domestic violence call, a police officer finds out that the assailant is the
brother of the police chief, and the police chief tells the officer to “make it go away”.

3. A moral dilemma is a situation in which a person is torn between right and wrong. A moral dilemma
involves a conflict with the very core of a person’s principles and values. The choice the person makes
may leave them feeling burdened, guilty, relieved, or questioning their values. A moral dilemma often
forces the individual to decide which option he or she can live with, but any outcomes are extremely
unpleasant no matter what. Some examples of moral dilemmas include:

• The classic “lifeboat dilemma”, where there are only 10 spaces in the lifeboat, but there are 11
passengers on the sinking ship. A decision must be made as to who will stay behind.
• A husband learns he has a terminal illness and he decides to ask his wife for assistance in ending
the pain before it gets too bad.
• A friend discovers her best friend’s boyfriend is cheating. She must decide whether to tell her
friend or keep it a secret.

The three Stages of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg (1958) agreed with Piaget's (1932) theory of moral

development in principle but wanted to develop his ideas further. He used
Piaget’s storytelling technique to tell people stories involving moral dilemmas.
In each case, he presented a choice to be considered, for example, between the
rights of some authority and the needs of some deserving individual who is
being unfairly treated. One of the best known of Kohlberg’s (1958) stories
concerns a man called Heinz who lived somewhere in Europe.
In the photo: Lawrence Kohlberg
Photo soruce: totallyhistory.com

Heinz’s wife was dying from a particular type of cancer. Doctors said a new drug might save her. The
drug had been discovered by a local chemist, and the Heinz tried desperately to buy some, but the
chemist was charging ten times the money it cost to make the drug, and this was much more than the
Heinz could afford. Heinz could only raise half the money, even after help from family and friends. He
explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if he could have the drug cheaper or pay the
rest of the money later.

The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from it. The
husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole the
drug. The chemist refused, saying that he had discovered the drug and was going to make money from
it. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so later that night he broke into the chemist’s and stole
the drug.

Kohlberg asked a series of questions such as:

1. Should Heinz have stolen the drug?

7
2. Would it change anything if Heinz did not love his wife?
3. What if the person dying was a stranger, would it make any difference?
4. Should the police arrest the chemist for murder if the woman died?

By studying the answers from children of different ages to these questions, Kohlberg hoped to
discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older. The sample comprised 72 Chicago boys
aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).
Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on the ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was mainly
interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the
decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older. Kohlberg identified
three distinct levels of moral reasoning: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Each
level has two sub-stages. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage
replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.

Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development

You may watch it on youtube : https://youtu.be/GTzBrjxKHLg

Level 1 - Pre-conventional morality

At the pre-conventional level (most nine-year-olds and younger, some over nine), we don’t have a
personal code of morality. Instead, our moral code is shaped by the standards of adults and the
consequences of following or breaking their rules.
Authority is outside the individual and reasoning is based on the physical consequences of actions.
• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being
punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.
• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right
view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional morality

At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of
valued adult role models.Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the
norms of the group to which the person belongs.
• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a
good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.
• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of
society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Post-conventional morality

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights
and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional
morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a
minority think through ethical principles for themselves.
• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while
rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against
the interest of particular individuals. The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s
dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

8
• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines
which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles
even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of
disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

LEARNING ACTIVITY
Activity 3.1 Below is an example of a situation that will require careful consideration on what course of
action to take. Read carefully and write down your arguments on a separate sheet of paper.

Situation 1
Your family is on an exclusive vacation on a private stretch of beach with no lifeguard. Your daughter
and your niece, both 7, are best friends and eager to get into the water. You caution them to wait until
the water calms some, but they defy you and sneak in anyway. You soon hear screams of distress and
find them both caught in a strong current. You are the only swimmer strong enough to save them, but
you can only save one at a time. Your niece is a very poor swimmer and likely won’t make it much
longer. Your daughter is a strong swimmer, but only has a 50% chance of holding on long enough for you
to come back for her. Who would you save first and Why? Discuss what would be the morally right
action for those in Stages 1-6 of Kohlberg’s theory in the given dilemma.

TASK

Activity 3.2 Have you ever faced a situation in which you feel obliged to take two or more actions (at a
time), but then realized that it would not be possible? In this part, you may write a moral dilemma based
on your experience. You may also incorporate some of the arguments that you have used in the process.
Use a separate sheet of paper for this task.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Lyle V., 1985, “Moral Dilemmas, Deliberation, and Choice,” The Journal of Philosophy 82:
139–162
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.
Lebus, Bruce, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas: Why They Are Hard to Solve,” Philosophical Investigations, 13:
110–125.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Moral Dilemmas. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-dilemmas/