MORAL DILEMMA

The exact meaning of a dilemma is a situation in which you have to choose between two
equally unpleasant alternatives. There is an old saying "to be on the horns of a dilemma"
which suggests how painful this position can be. A moral dilemma is even worse,
because whichever option you choose, someone or something will suffer. In a moral
dilemma, you have to decide on the morally correct course of action, not just the one
you would prefer.

Two well-known examples of moral dilemmas are:

-you can rescue (from a fire, say) either an ancient, priceless object or a diseased,
drunken and morally repulsive human being
-a doctor can only operate on one patient - he has to choose between a kind, obscure
family man and a gifted artist who is also a horrible human being.

Or a more everyday moral dilemma might be: you have a mentally disturbed relative
(could even be your own child.) This person makes life hell for your family and your
(other) children
are suffering. On the other hand, the relative is happier with you than s/he would be
elsewhere. Should you continue to care for this person or place them in an institution?

This kind of painful decision, where every solution involves some kind of loss, is a moral
dilemma. Some examples are:

1. The Overcrowded Lifeboat

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were

crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it
became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone
were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this
situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown.
Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for
they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would
be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some
people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were
done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these
deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could
do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility;
this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain
rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great
efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be
sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by
drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days
of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for
his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
 2. A Father's Agonizing Choice

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to

hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from
underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill your son but
some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he
means what he says. What should you do?

3. Sophie's Choice, not in Grassian.

In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 --

the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman,
Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz
death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being
allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if
she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are
being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter,
who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son
will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does
learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the
guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide.
Should she have felt guilty?

4. The Fat Man and the Impending Doom, with parts cut out in the 2nd edition;
they seem to have gotten removed to avoid unintentionally humorous overtones.

A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the
mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless
he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is
out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him
a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without
using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use
it everyone will drown. What should they do?

Since the fat man is said to be "leading" the group, he is responsible for their
predicament and reasonably should volunteer to be blown up. The dilemma
becomes more acute if we substitute a pregnant woman for the fat man. She
would have been urged by the others to go first out of the cave.

SCIENCE AND MODERN CIVILISATION

1. Modern civilization is completely influenced by science.

2. Science has built up a glittering civilisation.

3. Science has given us the power to abolish poverty. It has added to man’s health. All
these enable us to think of the higher purposes of life which help to enrich the
civilisation.

4. Science has given us the means of destruction. War is a serious menace to tbe modern
civilisation.

5. Science has done nothing to refine and ennoble our feelings,emotions and aspirations.

6. Men file irrational children are playing lightly with the inventions and are taking the
civilisation towards its doom.

7. Science by itself cannot help us in the crisis. We shall have to seek the help of
religion, philosophy and humanistic studies.

Modern civilization is completely dominated by science. Directly and indirectly, it has

entered into the life of the commonest and poorest citizen. To be indifferent to science is
to disown a fundamental human instinct which calls into action the great virtues not only
of the intellect but of character too. It is to refuse the inexhaustible material gifts of
science which have already added much to the health, resources and powers of man. The
progress of science is indeed the most outstanding feature of modern civilization which
seems impossible without science.

Science has built up a glittering civilization, opened up innumerable avenues for the
growth of knowledge. It has made available to him countless amenities and comforts
without which life in the modern age will seem impossible Electricity is the made of all
work Means of transport have become swift, easy and comfortable. The scorching heat of
summer and intense cold of winter do not make us uncomfortable. We can even enjoy
those things which are not produced in our country. Science has enabled us to deal with
shortages and famines by movement of food and other commodities.

Science had added greatly to our health. We do fall ill, but death me has been much
reduced. Health does not mean civilization but healthy man will surely contribute much
more towards the civilization. Science has given us the power to abolish poverty. All this
may not have a share in the growth of civilization, but it does offer us opportunities to
think of the higher put poses of life which is civilization.

The most serious danger to the modern civilization is the menace of war. Modern war has
become a naked dance of death and the Civilization may be assisted by the material gifts
of science, but it mainly depends upon our feelings and emotion. Science has not made us
kinder, gentler and more sympathetic. It has not dose anything to refine and ennoble our
feelings, emotions and aspirations.
We still suffer from national prejudice. Self-interest, competition, hatred, ambition and
such other feelings dominate our minds, This has resulted in upsetting not only the
international relations but also the relations between man and man. If rivalry, hatred and
distrust give place to healthy competition, mutual trust and confidence the policy of
nations would undergo a radical change, and science will cease to be exploited for selfish
and destructive purposes.

Science, however, cannot help us in the crisis. The problems modern civilization is
confronted with are human, whereas science is non-human. Science has given us an
immense knowledge of the physical world, and has completely neglected the world of the
mind and the soul. The progress of civilization depends on how the man may choose to
use the knowledge and resources which science has provided to us. The need of the hour
is to acquire intellectual power as may enable us to use properly and with wisdom the
power which science has given us. We must therefore try first to be human and then to be
super-human in our attitude to life and the world. If we do not learn to control ourselves,
we may destroy the civilization we have built.

Scientific Determinism and Heisenberg`s Uncertainty

Principle
In the history of science, Newton`s theory of gravity offered a detailed explanation of
various physical processes. It gave a mechanical view of the universe, and the French
scientist Marquis Pierre-Simon de Laplace in the nineteenth century claimed that
Newton's laws indicated that the universe was entirely deterministic. Laplace believed
that given a set of scientific laws one would be able to predict everything that happened
in the universe. Laplace expanded Newton`s laws by not limiting them only to physical
phenomena but to human behavior as well.

Throughout history, many have felt opposed to the concept of rigorous scientific
determinism as it undermined not only human freedom and free will, but also limited
God`s powers. As such, God would not be free to intervene in and interfere with the
world. In various cases, these beliefs have created an increasing gap between the domains
of science and religion.

The Impact of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle on Modern Science

The German scientist Werner Heisenberg challenged scientific determinism with the
concept of the uncertainty principle. In quantum theory, it becomes difficult to correctly
predict the position and movement of a particle at the same time. When one tries to
measure the position of a given particle it becomes more difficult to measure its speed,
and vice versa. There always remains a certain “uncertainty” in the mass and/or velocity
of the particle, commonly referred to by scientists as Planck's constant
What is a Moral Issue?
The Distinction Between Moral Actions and Nonmoral Actions
Abstract: A working definition of an issue of moral concern is shown to be any issue with the potential to help or harm anyone,
including yourself.

I. Hypothesis 1: Moral issues are those which involve a difference of belief and not a
matter of preference.

A. In other words, a moral dispute would involve a factual disagreement (or a

disagreement in belief) where one or the other or neither belief is correct. It would not
involve a disagreement in attitude (or a disagreement in feeling).

If you need a clarification on this distinction together with some exercises in making
the distinction go to the varieties of Disagreements in Attitude and Belief and the quiz
on that topic.

1. On this view, an example of a moral issue would be cheating on exams or

obeying the law.

2. A nonmoral issue would involve examples like eating grapefruit or listening to

music, c.p.

B. Objection: Many nonmoral issues are factual. This distinction would not be
sufficient distinguish between scientific and moral beliefs.

II. Hypothesis 2: Moral issues are those which involve a specific kind of experience, i.e.,
a special kind of feeling.

A. This feeling differs intuitively from other kinds of feelings such as religious or
aesthetic feelings. (Some people think they arise from a conscience.)

B. On this hypothesis, such feelings are a kind of satisfaction, shame, or guilt.

C. Objection: such feelings depend to a large extent upon how one has been reared.

1. Sociopaths or pyschopaths have no such feelings. These words are informal

descriptors for . . .

"Antisocial personality: A personality disorder characterized by a basic lack of

socialization and by behavior patterns that bring the individual repeatedly into
conflict with society. People with this disorder are incapable of significant
loyalty to individuals, groups, or social values and are grossly selfish, callous,
irresponsible, impulsive, and unable to feel guilt or to learn from experience.
Frustration tolerance is low. Such individuals tend to blame others or to offer
plausible rationalizations for their behavior." (American Psychiatric Association,
A Psychiatric Glossary, 4th ed.)
 2. Other feelings which some people experience are simply inappropriate. For
example, feeling guilty for taking your fair share; inferiority complexes, and so
forth.

III. Hypothesis 3: Moral issues are those which involve a specific kind of situation, i.e.,
the acts which affect other people.

A. On this view, whenever people interact, issues of moral concern arise.

B. By inference, then, there would be no matters of moral concern for Robinson

Crusoe.

C. Objection: (1) There are self-regarding duties (your first duty is to yourself--you
ought to develop personal habits of courage, and so forth.) (2) Not all interactions are
of moral concern; some or morally unimportant.

1. Interestingly enough, this objection is a reason why the Golden Rule cannot be a
universal principle of morality.

2. We have duties to ourselves. Not all persons which to be treated in the same
manner.

IV. Hypothesis 4: Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm
others or ourselves.

A. This is the definition we shall take as a working definition for this course.

B. Notice that if we have an issue of moral concern, it might involve something good.
(Often, many people think that if an issue is of moral concern then it is an issue
involving some wrong action.)

C. On this definition, very few human decisions are actions are not of some moral
concern--only those with no foreseeable consequences which can help or harm others
or ourselves.

1. The physical, biological, and social sciences would be used to determine the
potential to help or harm.

2. On this view, carelessness and unintentional actions are moral issues. The full
explication of the view is dependent upon a consistent theory of human action. (Is
an accident of moral concern?)