Morality and Dilemma

Dr. Godfrey G. Mendoza

Maestro
 Fundamental Concepts
 Morality
 Moral and Non-Moral Standards
 Moral Dilemma
 Levels of Moral Dilemma
 Foundation of Morality
 Requirement of Morality
 Moral Principles Involved in actions having

Two Effects

drggmendoza
What is MORALITY?

drggmendoza
Morality
 Morality refers to that quality of goodness or
badness in a human act.
 Morality may refer to the standards that a

person or a group has about on what is right

and wrong, or good and evil.
 Accordingly, moral standards are those
concerned with or relating to human
behavior, especially the distinction between
good and bad (or right and wrong) behavior.

drggmendoza
Moral Standards
 Moral standards involve the rules people have
about the kinds of actions they believe that are
morally right and wrong, as well as the values they
place on the kinds of objects they believe are
morally good and morally bad.
 Some ethicists equate moral standards with moral
principles and moral values (standards of behavior;
one’s judgment of what is important in life).

drggmendoza
drggmendoza
drggmendoza
Non-moral Standards
 Non-moral standards refer to rules that are
unrelated to moral or ethical considerations.
Either these standards are not necessarily linked
to morality or by nature lack ethical sense.
 Basic examples of non-moral standards include

rules of etiquette, fashion standards, rules in

games, and various house rules.
 Technically, religious rules, some traditions, and

legal statutes (i.e. laws and ordinances) are non-

moral principles, though they can be ethically
relevant depending on some factors and contexts.
drggmendoza
drggmendoza
Moral, Amoral, and Immoral
 Moral are specific beliefs, behaviors and ways
of being derived from doing ethics
 Amoral is termed used to refer to actions that

can normally judged as moral or immoral but

are done with a lack of concern for good
behavior. Morally indifferent neither good or
bad, in itself.
 Immoral person’s behavior is in opposition to

accepted societal, religious, cultural or

professional ethical standards and principles;
Ex: dishonesty, fraud, murder, and sexually
abusive acts
drggmendoza
drggmendoza
Moral Standards and Non-Moral Standards

drggmendoza
Moral and Non-Moral Standards
1. How Morality is Sensed
A. Morality in Descriptive Sense – “codes of conduct put
forward by a society or a group (such as religion), or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior”(Gert, 2016).
It depends on the religion, culture, ethnicity or belief.

B. Morality in Normative Sense – or “Universal Principle of

Ethics”, “a code of conduct that, given specified conditions,
would be put forward by all rational persons”(Gert, 2016). It
applies to all people regardless of the factors stated above.

NOTE: Ethics understands morality in the normative sense, that

is, it tries to establish universal moral principle and that it posits
that the person is a moral agent.
 Moral Standards Non-Moral Standards

 is one that not only tells that  refers to rules which do

some actions are desirable not concern moral
because they are good not actions or judgments.
only for oneself but also for  It says what is preferable
others, but that it is
acceptable by rational actors or not but it does not say
as well that valuing some goods
 seeks to codify rules of are necessarily right or
conduct (of right and wrong) wrong.
which can be rationally …People value money and
accepted by relevant reputation while others
individuals. It does not prefer to live a life of poverty
simply tell the rightness or and do not care how other
wrongness of the action but
people perceives them.
it justifies why certain
actions are right and why
These are preferences which
other actions are wrong. are not necessarily right or
 is one that is justified by wrong.
reason, and not by custom,
religion, or by certain
convictions of a group of
people. drggmendoza
Moral Dilemma

drggmendoza
Moral Dilemma

drggmendoza
2. Moral Dilemma
Dilemma - is a situation where the individual is
torn between two or more conflicting options.
Applied to ethics, a moral dilemma places the
moral agent in a situation that requires her to
choose between two or more conflicting moral
requirements.
 A moral requirement means that the person is

obliged to do certain acts. It consists of:

A. an agent;
B. an obligation to act on each of the two or
more options; yet
C. the agent cannot do both or all possible
options.
drggmendoza
Sophie’s Choice
 Others, however, do not reject altogether the possibility of a
genuine moral dilemma.
 William Styron’s (1979) Sophie’s Choice is a point in case. As
the story tells, Sophie was a mother of two children. They
were in a concentration camp during the Nazi regime. The
guards informed Sophie that one of her children is to live
while the other is to die. Here, Sophie needs to choose who is
to die and who is to live. The point is that she needs to
choose one. If she chooses neither, both of her children die,
making Sophie morally compelled to decide (Styron, 1979).
 This situation tells that Sophie cannot hierarchically arrange
her moral obligations because she has only one of it: to save
her children from imminent death. Those who hold the first
view, however, can still argue that Sophie’s choice to choose
one of her children is morally desirable rather than not to
make the choice at all. For the former view, to choose one of
Sophie’s children overrides her option not to choose at all.
Types of Moral Dilemma
1. Epistemic and Ontological conflict;
2. Self and World-imposed dilemmas;
3. Single agent and Multi-person dilemmas;
and
4. a dilemma caused by a conflict on General
and Role-related obligations 

(McConnell, 2014).

drggmendoza
Epistemic conflict
 EPISTEMIC refers to a situation where the agent does not
know what option is morally right. In other words, the
agent does not know which moral option takes
precedence in a given situation.
 Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two
or more moral requirements conflict with each other and
that the moral agent hardly knows which of the
conflicting moral requirements takes precedence over the
other. In other words, the moral agent here does not
know which option is morally right or wrong.
 Ex #1: An example of this moral dilemma is: telling the
person’s whereabouts and knowing, in the first place,
that doing would jeopardize the person’s safety. Here the
dilemma is about between telling the truth and the
person’s well-being. This type of dilemma is clearly
resolvable if the agent is given further information. 
 Ex #2: For instance, I ought to honor my promise
to my son to be home early, but on my way home
I saw a sick old man who needs to be brought to
the hospital. Where does my actual duty lie? We
cannot deny that there are conflicting duties
(moral requirements) here, but we need to note
that we want a fuller knowledge of the situation: Is
an important purpose being served by my getting
home early? How serious is the condition of the
sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which
option is morally right in this situation. However,
one option must be better than the other; only, it
needs fuller knowledge of the situation―thus the
term “epistemic” moral dilemmas. 
Ontological conflict
 ONTOLOGICAL CONFLICT, the agent faces a situation
in which she is to choose between two or more
equally the same moral requirements and neither of
which overrides the other.
 Ontological moral dilemmas, on the other hand,
involve situations wherein two or more moral
requirements conflict with each other, yet neither of
these conflicting moral requirements overrides each
other. This is not to say that the moral agent does
not know which moral requirement is stronger than
the other. The point is that neither of the moral
requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the
moral agent can hardly choose between the
conflicting moral requirements.
 Ex #1: For instance, a military doctor is
attending to the needs of the wounded
soldiers in the middle of the war.
Unfortunately, two soldiers urgently need a
blood transfusion. However, only one bag of
blood is available at the moment.
 To whom shall the doctor administer the

blood transfusion? For sure, we could not tell

whether administering a blood transfusion to
Soldier A is more moral than administering a
blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.
Self-imposed Dilemma and World-
imposed Dilemma
 SELF-IMPOSED DILEMMA is caused by the agent’s
wrongdoings.
 A self-imposed dilemma arises when an agent, for
example, makes two or more conflicting promises and
neither of which she can disposed without conflicting
with the other. This type of dilemma is of the agents
own making.

WORLD-IMPOSED DILEMMA means that certain events

in the world place the agent in a situation of moral
conflict.
- Sophie’s case is also a case of a world imposed
dilemma.
 A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the
moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example, David is
running for the position of the town mayor. During
the campaign period, he promised the indigenous
peoples in his community to protect their virgin
forest just to gain their votes, but at the same time,
he seeks financial support from a mining
corporation.
 Fortunately, David won the elections, yet he is

faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to

the indigenous peoples and at the same time
allows the mining corporation to destroy their
forest. Indeed, through his own actions, David
created a situation in which it is impossible for him
to be discharged from both obligations.
 A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand,
this means that certain events in the world place the
agent in a situation of moral conflict. William
Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic
example:
 “Sophie Zawistowska has been asked to choose
which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to
the gas chamber in Auschwitz. An SS doctor, Fritz
Jemand von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to
only one of Sophie’s children. If she does not choose
which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send
both to their death. Sophie chooses her daughter Eva
to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the
Children’s Camp.”
Single Agent Dilemma and Multi-person
Dilemma
 SINGLE AGENT DILEMMA, as the term suggest, only involves a single
person, single-person dilemma compels the person to act on two or
more equally the same moral options, but she cannot choose both.
 MULTI-PERSON DILEMMA involves two or more persons. a multi-
person dilemma involves several agents with the same set of moral
requirements. But in this case, the persons involved may choose
moral options which conflict with each other – a situation that leads
to interpersonal conflict among the persons involved. In other
words, the single person dilemma concerns an agent who is thrown
to choose between two or more moral obligations, for instance
choices A, B and C. The multi-person dilemma concerns the same
set of options – that is between A, B and C. However, while the
single person dilemma necessitates that the agent chooses among
the available moral obligations, the multi-person does not inasmuch
as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral
choices – that is, person X chooses A instead of B and C, and person
Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth.
 In single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all
things considered, to do A, ought, all things
considered, to do B, and she cannot do
both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent
is compelled to act on two or more equally the
same moral options, but she cannot choose
both.
 Ex #1: For instance, a medical doctor found out

that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical

doctor may experience tension between the
legal requirement to report the case and the
desire to respect confidentiality, although the
medical code of ethics acknowledges our
obligation to follow legal requirements and to
intervene to protect the vulnerable.
 In multi-person dilemma, on the other hand, “…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.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person
does not inasmuch as agents X, Y and Z may possibly have
chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X chooses
A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A
and C, so on and so forth. The multi-person dilemma occurs
in situations that involve several persons like a family, an
organization, or a community who is expected to produce
consensual decision on a moral issue at hand.
 A family may be torn between choosing to terminate or
prolong the life of a family member.
 An organization may have to choose between complying with
the wage law by cutting its workforce or by retaining its
current workforce by paying them below the required
minimum wage. 
General and Role-related Obligations 

 Most moral dilemmas are conflicts between

GENERAL AND ROLE OBLIGATIONS.
 For instance, while there is a general moral

obligation to respect and preserve life, some

government agents resort to torture
suspected terrorists to get the necessary
information to secure the general public.
Levels of Moral Dilemma
1. Individual - ethical standards of individuals in an organization are an
important consideration. Individuals may have a very different set of ethical
standards from those who run and manage the organization, and this can
lead to tensions. Factors such as peer pressure, personal financial position,
and socio-economic status all may influence individual ethical standards.
2. Organizational - ethical standards are embedded in the policies and
procedures of the organization, and form an important foundation on which
strategy is built. These policies derive from the influences felt at systemic
level and therefore help an organization to respond to changing pressures
in the most effective way. There can be a gap between the company policy
on ethical standards and the conduct of those in charge of running the
organization, especially if they are not the direct owners/founders, which
can present an ethical challenge for some individuals.
3. Systemic - systemic level, ethics are defined and influenced by the
wider operating environment in which the organization exists. Factors such
as political pressures, economic conditions, societal attitudes to certain
organizations, and even organizational regulation can influence its
operating standards and policies. Leaders and managers must be aware of
how these pressures affect operations and relationships, and how they may
impact on others locally, nationally and internationally.

drggmendoza
drggmendoza
4. Foundations of Morality
A. FREEDOM
B. RESPONSIBILITY
“ Freedom means we make our way within the limits
of physical and material entanglements. It is in the
space within these limits that we exercise our choices.
In these limits, we either live a life of virtue or vice.
And to live in either way depends on our choices”.

“A Person is the owner of her actions.”

but
“You are accountable the consequences of your
action.”

drggmendoza
5. Requirements for Morality (Reason and
Impartiality)
 Reason is the capacity of consciously making sense of things,
establishing and verifying facts, applying logic, and changing or
justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing
information.

 “Man is a rational being”.

 “Reason serves as the grounding principle of moral actions”. (Most

Philosophers)

 Impartiality (fairness) is the concept of justice, fairness and equity

(proportionality or according to your need) and equality.
 Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a
principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on
objective (the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by
personal beliefs or feelings; the state or quality of being objective and
fair) criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring
the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.

drggmendoza
The Question is…

Is it morally right to do certain

actions from which good as well bad
effects follow?

drggmendoza
6. Moral Principle Involved Having Two Effects

Conditions:
A. The act in itself should be good, or at least morally
indifferent;
B. The evil effect should not be directly intended, but
morally allowed to happen as a regrettable side
issue;
C. There should be a reason sufficiently grave in doing
the act; and
D. That the evil effect should not outweigh the good
effect.

“The end does not justify the means”.

drggmendoza
“The End Does Not Justify the Means”
 We should not employ bad means even in order
to attain a good end. We may not do evil that
good may result.
 The reason behind this principle is that: the

morality of an act primarily depends on the

nature of the act itself and not on the intention
of the agent, nor on the consequences of the
act.
 If an action is of the wrong kind, it is forbidden,

no matter how good its consequences are.

drggmendoza
End of the topic…next topic…
Part 2 – The Moral Agent

drggmendoza