Moral Dilemma

MORAL DILEMMA Karlo S. Tolentino, LPT, MAEd. Moral Dilemmas Are instances when individuals are confronted with conflicting answers to the question, "what is right?“ Answers to this question come from various sources: One is personal experience or the things an individual ga...

MORAL DILEMMA Karlo S. Tolentino, LPT, MAEd. Moral Dilemmas Are instances when individuals are confronted with conflicting answers to the question, "what is right?“ Answers to this question come from various sources: One is personal experience or the things an individual gains every day from social interactions. Another source—the one pursued by philosophers-is to obtain moral judgments by applying the principles of morality.  In psychology, a moral dilemma is said to arise when distinct psychological mechanisms for moral judgment yield conflicting judgments of individual cases. Situations like these can place a person in a moral conflict, in which several alternative courses of action can have positive and negative outcomes. Conflict typically involves opposing values, beliefs, and norms. Thus, conflict is rooted not only in individual behavior but also in different values and norms of the society.  The English Oxford Dictionary defines moral dilemma as a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral principle. In matters of right and wrong, individuals are expected to have moral principles to guide them in moral decision-making.  In philosophy, a moral dilemma is based on a distinction between what one foresees (or could and should have foreseen) as a result of his or her voluntary action (free will) and what, in the strict sense, he or she intends to do.  Moral dilemma relates primarily to the principle of double effect that takes root in the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. In his work Summa Theologica, St. Thomas introduces the principle of double effect in his discussion on the permissibility of self-defense. He himself holds that killing one's assailant is justified, provided that one does not intend to kill him or her. The act of self-defense may have double effect: first, the saving of one's own life; second, the slaying of the aggressor. He also argues that since one's intention is to save one's own life, the act is not unlawful. However, St. Thomas maintains that the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional. The act of self-defense may be rendered unlawful if a man in self-defense shows unnecessary violence. Case Situation: You are an eyewitness to a robbery. A man robbed a rich woman for him to pay for his son’s crucial operation. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the police to report the crime, there is the strong possibility that the money will be returned to the rich woman. What will you do? Will you report the crime and tell the truth to the police or say nothing since the money will be used for the operation and the son will be saved? Justify your answer.  Important Elements in Moral Decision-Making The New Catholic Encyclopedia lists the principal conditions of the principle of double effect: 1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. 2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he or she could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he or she should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. 3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. 4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect.  Paul Glenn further describes when one performs an act, not evil in itself, from there flows two effects-one good and one evil. 1. The evil effect must not precede the good effect. It is a fundamental principle of ethics that evil may never be willed directly, whether it be a means or an end to be achieved. One cannot do evil so good may come of it. As the saying goes, "the end moto does not justify the means." 2. There must be a reason sufficiently grave calling for the act in its good effect. If this condition cannot be fulfilled, then there is no adequate reason for the act at all, and the act is prohibited in view of its evil effect. The sufficiency of the reason must be determined by the nature, circumstances, and importance of the act. 3. The intention of the agent (person, doer) must be honest. If the person really wills the evil effect, then there is no possibility that the act is acceptable. The direct willing of evil is always against reason and, hence, against the principles of ethics. Case Situation: You are a doctor at a hospital. You have five seriously ill patients, four of whom are in urgent need of organ transplants. You cannot help them because there were no available organs that can be used to save their lives. The fifth patient, a criminal, has a lingering illness that can no longer be treated. If he dies, you will be able to save the other four patients by using his organs for transplant. What will you do? Justify your answer using moral decision-making Steps in Solving a Moral Dilemma  1. Examine the acts in relation to the agent The immorality of human acts is determined by examining the acts in themselves in their relation to the agent (person, doer) who performs them. The agent and the facts surrounding the act must be assessed. 2. Determine the Consequences of the Acts The second step of testing the morality or immorality of a human act is called consequentialism. The principle of consequentialism suggests that one must weigh the consequences of a human act to determine whether it is moral or immoral.  3. Identify the intention of the acts For St. Thomas, the morality or immorality of the act resides in the intention of the person. If the agent intends to cause harmful consequences, then the act is immoral.  4. Decide in accordance to divine and natural laws which govern moral life. St. Thomas holds that not all aspects of the human person are either moral or immoral. Nonetheless, he suggests that divine and natural laws are the criteria by which people can judge the morality or immorality of their moral decisions especially when they are faced with moral dilemmas. In pursuit of moral decisions, the human person must discern and make all the right choices by relating them to divine law and the ultimate good of humanity. END K.S.T.