4 single agent and multi-person quandaries. An epistemic or ontological dilemma is when you don't know what course of action will best accomplish a goal. For example, if I want to help an injured bird, I could pick it up but then I'd be responsible for it. Or, I could leave it alone but then I wouldn't be sure that I had helped it. In this case, I don't know what would best help the bird so I can't make an informed choice about what action to take. A self-imposed dilemma is when you choose to do something even though you believe it's wrong. For example, if I steal money from my employer and give it to orphanages, I'm choosing to break the law. But I do it because I believe that helping others is more important than following the law. A world-imposed dilemma is when you cannot act without causing harm to others. If I don't fix the leak in my neighbor's sink, they'll have to hire a plumber which will cost them time and money. This action will not cause any harm to anyone else so it's a prohibitionary dilemma. An obligation dilemma is when you must act in one way but another option is better for you or someone else.
Six Different Types of Moral Dilemmas
A moral dilemma is a scenario in which the decision-maker must weigh two or more moral ideals or obligations but can only honor one of them; as a result, regardless of the decision, the individual will violate at least one key moral concern.
Moral dilemmas arise most commonly in situations where there are conflicting demands that cannot be resolved through rational argumentation. For example, let's say that you are a police officer and are given the choice to save either one innocent person or another guilty person. It is obvious that no matter what decision you make, you will be violating some kind of moral principle. This shows that even though making decisions based on reason may help us avoid wrongdoing, it cannot provide an all-encompassing guide for right action.
Moral dilemmas also occur when there are multiple ways for someone to comply with both obligations, but choosing one option over the other would still be considered wrong. For example, let's say that you are driving home from work and see an accident up ahead. There are two people trapped in their car, unable to escape despite the fact that one of them is not involved in the accident. Choosing whom to save depends on many factors, such as how far away they are from help, but no matter what decision you make, you will be breaking the law by leaving the scene of an accident.
The "moral dilemma" or "ethical dilemma," in which a character is confronted with a conflict of morality or ethics, is one of literature's most prominent topics. In such a situation, selecting one morality means violating another; alternatively doing one thing may provide favorable consequences but is ethically wrong. The term is often applied to situations that present themselves in fiction.
Moral dilemmas are common in novels, movies, and television shows. A character is faced with two choices that affect his or her morals; for example, saving someone who will later reveal themselves to be evil, or letting an innocent person die to save oneself. Ethical dilemmas are similar, but they involve decisions that affect more than one character. For example, a choice may not only affect the protagonist, but also other characters in the story, or even others beyond the fictional world (such as animals or the environment). Writing about ethical dilemmas involves considering different perspectives and their effects on individual characters before coming up with a solution that does not harm anyone.
Moral dilemmas and ethical debates appear frequently in books for young readers. They offer writers the opportunity to explore complex issues while still maintaining reader appeal. For example, a book might focus on a character who has to make a difficult decision about whether or not to tell the truth, something many children do not think about until after they have been told by an adult.
Such circumstances are referred described as "moral quandaries" in moral philosophy and ethics. Rachels and Rachels (2006) separate themselves from other types of dilemmas by requiring the agent to do each of two or more acts. The agent is capable of carrying out any of those activities; nevertheless, he cannot carry out two (or more) of them (Rachels & Rachels, 2006).
Moral dilemmas can be divided up into three general categories: killing, allowing to die, and acting against one's values. In all three cases, there are several ways for the agent to resolve the situation.
Killing a person who would otherwise live until they died was once thought to not be wrong because no one has a right to kill someone else's survival. However, this view has been shown to be incorrect as most people believe that it is wrong to kill someone even if they would have died anyway. Killing in such situations is considered immoral because it violates another person's right to life.
Allowing someone to die is treating them the same as dead even though they aren't. For example, let's say that you are walking down the street when you see someone in need of help. They are suffering from leprosy and have no chance of being cured. Since there are still some people alive today who are infected with leprosy, doctors should continue to try and find a cure so that future generations will also have healthy joints. However, the infected person won't survive long enough to receive treatment.
A moral quandary is a circumstance in which a person is divided between doing what is right and doing what is wrong. A moral quandary entails a clash with the fundamental foundation of a person's ideals and values. The person's decision may leave them feeling burdened, guilty, relieved, or unsure about their principles.
Moral dilemmas can be divided into two general categories: harmless and harmful. Harmless moral dilemmes involve choices that would otherwise not cause any harm to others but that cannot be made without causing some kind of harm. For example, if a drug dealer is about to be killed by a hit man, there has been a moral dilemma because killing one person to save another is wrong. However, the killer could have saved both people by not showing up at the appointed time; therefore, this was a harmless moral dilemma because no one was actually harmed by it. Harmful dilemmas are those that would cause harm to others without saving them. For example, if a fire alarm goes off in a burning building and everyone escapes except for one person who is left behind, there has been a moral dilemma because helping one person would make another lose their life. Therefore, this was a harmful moral dilemma because it caused harm to others.
Harmless moral dilemmes should never be ignored because they show that someone has values and morals, even if they sometimes act contrary to these values.