importance of moral dilemma essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10 What is a Moral (Ethical) Dilemma?

What is a Moral (Ethical) Dilemma?

Deborah Holt, BS, MA

By now, you should have a good understanding of how we define “ethics” and “morals.”  We will now turn our attention to defining moral (ethical) dilemma.  When defining moral (ethical) dilemma, it is important to recognize that a moral (ethical) dilemma is not simply a question  that requires you to make a decision of “What color outfit should I wear today,” or “Will the red or blue shoes best match my outfit?” Nor is a moral (ethical) dilemma a situation where you must decide between an action such as “Should I eat chocolate or vanilla ice cream for dessert” or “Should I read the introduction to my textbook or start with chapter one?”  As far as I know, there is nothing immoral or unethical with eating either chocolate or vanilla ice cream for dessert or with skipping over the introduction and beginning with the first chapter of a book ( except, you might overlook some helpful information by not reading the introduction to your textbook).

The point is a moral (ethical) dilemma involves making a choice between two or more moral (ethical) values and in making a decision or in taking action you will compromise or violate some other moral (ethical) principle(s) or value(s).  A moral (ethical) dilemma is a situation that involves a choice, decision, act/action, solution that may include an unpleasant problem or situation where you feel you simply do not know what to do or which way to turn. When identifying what is or is not a moral (ethical) dilemma, we need to remember the key words here are “moral” or “ethical” (as a reminder, we are using these words interchangeably).

A response to a moral (ethical) dilemma is not always a matter of “right versus wrong,” as both courses of action or decision could seem moral or ethical (or the “right thing to do”). In some cases, it is a “right versus right” type of dilemma, which involves having to decide the better or best way to respond when faced with two or more “right “courses of action or decisions to select from.  When faced with a moral (ethical) dilemma, you will probably be asking yourself “What should I do?” or “What ought I do now?”   You may have a “little voice” inside your head telling you to do one thing, while your immediate desire is to do another.  Some may refer to this “little voice” as your conscience, and you may be the type of person who is keenly aware of their own “moral compass.”  Have you ever known what you “must do,” but simply did not “feel” like doing it?  When faced with a situation like this, do you listen to that “little voice” and follow your moral compass? Or, do you simply do the first thing you think of, what most pleases you or others, or do nothing?

The” right versus wrong” ethical dilemmas, are not usually the ones we have a problem resolving (such as, “Should I cheat on a test?” or “Is it okay to harm an innocent person?”).  It is the “right versus right” ethical dilemmas that seem to be the hardest to resolve.

Let’s look at a few examples of what could be considered “right versus right’ moral (ethical) dilemma:

• Your eighteen-year-old son/daughter confided in you that they had been involved in the recent theft of your neighbor’s car. Should you call the police and turn your son/daughter in because you want to be honest with you neighbor, as well as want to tell the truth? Or do you simply “keep quiet” because you want to remain loyal to your son/daughter, especially since they told you in confidence? (Think about truth versus loyalty when pondering this dilemma, such as in the relationship with your son/daughter and your neighbor.)

• You have a failing grade in your English class, and you were quite surprised when you received your final exam back. It shows you scored 100% on the exam, yet you cannot figure out how you even passed the exam.  You did not study, and you totally guessed when completing the multiple-choice and true/false questions.  There is no way you could have passed the final exam, and you were prepared to earn an F in the course. You had even planned to retake the course during the summer.  You really need to pass this class to graduate. Upon reviewing the exam, you notice the teacher made a big mistake in grading my exam.  You should have earned an F on the final exam, and not the grade of 100%. Even with  the grade of 100% on the final exam, you will barely pass the course with a D.  The error in grading was not your fault, so you are wondering if you should say anything to your instructor about her big mistake in grading my final exam? If you say something, then you will fail the course and have to retake it in the summer.  If you do not say anything, you can at least earn a D and not have to retake the course.  (Think about the short- and long-term impact of this situation on you as the student, the instructor, and other students in the same course.)

• You cannot stand wearing a mask due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It makes your glasses fog up and it is simply uncomfortable. You have not been feeling ill either.  For the most part, you stay home and only venture out for occasional groceries.  You live alone and do not live in a state or locality where wearing a mask is mandatory.  Should you wear a make when you occasionally go to the grocery story?  When pondering this dilemma, consider that there’s no law that makes it mandatory to wear a make ( such as, there is no law that applies to your state or community). Just because something is legal, still consider if it is ethical.  (You should consider the impact of wearing or not wearing a mask in relationship to you as the individual, as compared to the community in which you live.)

• You are the manager of a restaurant and one of your long-term employees did not show up for work on a Friday night when your restaurant is slammed with customers. This really put you in a jam, and you end up having to ask one of your other employees to work late to cover the shift for the missing employee. What is surprising  to you is your long-term employee has never done this before. It was shocking they never called to let you know what happened and inform you they would not be coming in.  The following morning the long-term employee shows up for their scheduled morning shift.  You are not very happy because the employee acts like nothing happened, and did not even offer an explanation. In the employee handbook, there is a statement about zero tolerance for “no shows” when it comes to being at work ( this is really important on a Friday night too). The employee handbook further explains it is the employee’s responsibility to notify you prior to their scheduled work time/shift. What should you do?  Do you immediately tell this long-term employee they are fired because it was very disrespectful to both you and the other employees, as well as making it difficult to provide quality service for customers because you were short-handed in terms of staff?  Or, do you give this employee a chance to “redeem” themselves?  (You should consider if you believe justice is served by enforcing the rules and holding employees accountable for their actions. Or, should you look with mercy on the wrongdoer since they are a long-term employee and perhaps give them another chance?)

What is a Moral (Ethical) Dilemma? Copyright © 2020 by Deborah Holt, BS, MA is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Analyzing the basics of ethical thinking for leaders and organizations in society

This chapter will introduce the basic constructs of moral thinking. We will begin by defining the terms morality and ethics.  After creating a working knowledge of the terminology, we will look at the roots of moral decision-making in our society by tracing the factors contributing to the Western societal framework. We will examine the many characteristics, including inherent tensions, that determine individual morality and societal ethics while focusing on the inherent legacy and discussion in that interaction. At the end of this section, different conceptions of the more profound components of moral theory and its interaction in society will be introduced, with constructive and practical outcomes that will help us to determine how best to approach ethical outcomes. This will include suggestions on becoming more aware of moral decision-making and how to avoid potential problems organizations or leaders might face as they consider problems that we must address personally, professionally, and in a societal and/or global sense.

Key Definitions

What is Morality?

The constructs of human conduct and/or values.

What is Ethics?

The study of the constructs that determine what is good and evil in direct connection with moral principles and values

What is Moral Reasoning?

The factors, arguments, and thinking patterns that determine the constructs of human conduct and/or values

Let’s begin with basic definitions of the study of moral philosophy and “good” decision-making.  Morality is the term used to describe the constructs of human conduct and/or values.  At its base, morality is formulated on an understanding of preferred behavior, in both an individual and societal sense, depending on the context.  It is often in the interaction of personal and societal factors that thinkers have contemplated the depth and uniqueness of this study. Though many theorists differ in their interpretation of how morality is derived personally and collectively, experts generally agree that morality is a combination of reason and “sense” that we use or fall back on to determine right from wrong or our expectations of ourselves and others.  Using the writings of Plato in commentary on Socrates, the definition focuses on morality as the determination of “how we ought to live.”  This understanding of morality coincides with our beliefs about the future and how we conceive of how the world, the people, and the factors that determine that reality should come to be and the result we desire.

Ethics is the formal study of the personal and collective definitions of morality. Ethics focuses on how we, individually or collectively, conceive or determine morality. It represents the constant reevaluation and thinking behind the decisions that have led us to these conclusions.

“Ethics” is derived from the Greek term “ethos.” This term was most closely connected to the Greek concept of “proper character or manners.” The definition of ethics, whether used as a discipline or conceptually, is focused on pursuing objective truth to determine better outcomes daily for everyone, regardless of the factors or the results. Inherent in the study of ethics is a crucial understanding of the concept of objectivity.

Moral reasoning is the series of factors, arguments, and thinking patterns that humans use or engage in to determine what the basic values or constructs of proper moral judgments should be. Moral reasoning focuses on why and/or how we achieve the result of a proper way of living life.  Though this is complicated, we all engage in this reasoning daily and throughout our lives, whether we consciously know it or not.

Two questions are at the core of this evaluation:

• What is the best course of thought and action required to improve our awareness of this reasoning?
• How do we determine the best outcome personally and as we interact and build community with others?

These terms are crucial to consider as we work towards the conceptual goal of truth. It includes how to read individuals more carefully and diligently and how we know ourselves.  By paying more close attention to these constructs and studying them in greater depth, a good thinker can understand the factors that determine better decisions and, of course, avoid the prospect of decisions that could be very costly.

Crucial Moral Concepts

What is Virtue?

The concept of moral excellence or proper moral conduct

What are Values?

Characteristics of human thought and action that are intrinsically preferred or held in high esteem

Building on these definitions, we turn our attention to two concepts that are crucial to ethical study.  Virtue is defined as the concept of moral excellence or proper moral conduct.  This term is also applied to a field of ethical study called “virtue ethics.”  “Virtue” philosophical thinkers believe there is a core of attributes central to the human condition that we can determine or “call upon” as preferred attributes of human behavior.  These theories are most widely studied in the framework of Ancient Greek philosophers, including Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who is perhaps the most famous.  We will look at their views in the future.  Many of these thinkers believe that ethical thinking becomes self-evident as individuals learn more about themselves and their world.

From that wisdom development, concepts of preferred behavior emerge. A good example is courage. Using reason, it becomes clear that being courageous is always more desirable than being uncourageous. Though people can be “courageous” or “uncourageous,” conceptually, courageous behavior is often believed to be more virtuous or an element of proper moral conduct.  In our study, we pay particular attention or think about what determines a better or wiser thinker and what it requires of us.  In Damon Horowitz’s 3-minute talk on teaching philosophy in prison, listen to his assessment of the importance and power of philosophical training and thought as it relates to determining the practical nature of the definition of virtue.  What essential components of this conversation should we consider as we contemplate what it means to pursue ethical thinking?  Those components of wisdom or attributes observed in human experience often coincide with the concepts that thinkers of the ages have determined are central to the “virtue” ethical excellence elements.

The other term essential to the discussion of morality and decision-making is the definition of values.  The baseline definition of the term “values” pertains to human thought and action characteristics that are intrinsically preferred or held in high esteem.  For our purposes, consider the term “values” or “value” as the individual characteristics, like courage, that make up the concept of virtuous or proper moral conduct.  These two terms remind us that ideals or concepts may be present in our daily decision-making.  The key is to identify them, ensure those ideals are central to objective truth and not just what we want, and consciously allow them to guide us in all aspects of our lives.

Basic Constructs of Ethical Study

Descriptive Ethics + Analytical Ethics = Normative Ethics

The determination of values and/or virtues can be seen in the struggle of leaders and organizations over time.  In the Twentieth Century and the Twenty-First Century, unethical decisions have dominated the world, resulting in unethical outcomes.  In the wake of such damaging outcomes, people are more astutely focusing on ethics and ethical practice.  In doing so, they consider greater thoughtful procedures as they scope through risk management, organizational function and productivity, market positioning, and civic responsibility. What has emerged in greater clarity is the understanding that profits and ethical decision-making, at all levels, can be integrated partners if consistent and committed to long-term success is kept at the forefront of individual consciousness.

At the beginning of the study of ethical options, we need to define a framework to understand how to study ethics.  In doing this, it becomes clear that ethics is complicated and not merely a formulation of what is only “wrong” or “right” but a concentrated and in-depth study of the various segments of human thought and behavior.  I term this complexity the equation of ethical study.  There are three components:

• Descriptive ethics is the branch of ethical study that considers ethical analysis in the context of a neutral representation of the perceptions or facts of any ethical situation.  It involves a lengthy and careful attempt to identify the ethical issues and values inherent in the evaluation process.
• Analytical ethics centers on the argument and logic in the ethical opinions and assessments used to determine the ethical issues, values, or outcomes.  This approach builds on descriptive ethics by considering the construct of ethical determination in greater depth.  Analytical ethics considers the ethical outcome based upon other decisions, especially those decisions that are disconnected from others and the impact such decisions or outcomes might have in that consideration.
• Normative ethics approaches the study of ethics with the belief, according to Kitson and Campbell in Case Studies in Business Ethics (2001), of seeking “to develop and defend judgments of right and wrong, good and bad, and virtue and vice, to arrive at an understanding of truth.”  This final evaluation tool process focuses on determining the best possible outcome after solid and productive consideration of descriptive and analytical components.  Normative is usually the stage of the ethical evaluation process that most people are familiar with, as it often leads to a decision or determination of what is “right” or “wrong” for an individual, group, organization, or society.

As May describes in Case Studies in Organizational Communication , these three layers make up the many different conceptualizations inherent in ethical analysis.  All are equally important, but we must consider the ethical layers when considering descriptive and analytical ethical standing to make the best possible decision.

Prominent Ethical Tensions

Foundational vs. Situational Tensions

Individual vs. Community Tensions

Beyond these layers of ethical study, good critical thinkers must be aware of inevitable tensions between individuals crucial to ethical study evaluation.  Such tensions exist in our world and are at the root of ethical dilemmas.

The first tension focuses on the interaction between foundational and situational arguments.

• Foundational ethical arguments are built upon the idea that proper ethical formulation is based upon “universal” constructs of ethical thinking or objective conceptualization. From this standpoint, ethical evaluation is determined by an objective assessment that the individual or organization using this approach deems accurate, regardless of context or situation.
• Situational ethical arguments are formulated on the belief that ethical thinking is a product of consistent change and subjective conceptualizations based upon unique circumstances or each instance in which an ethical evaluation must occur. This presents tension as each perspective can often be at the root of ethical differences and misunderstandings.

The other tension highlights the moral stances of ideologies linked to individualism and collectivism.

• I ndividualistic ideology argues that proper ethical evaluation and determination are inherently formulated on the individual, entity, and responsibility.
• The collective ethical perspective argues the opposite.

Ethical decision-making is best constructed through understanding the soundest course of thought and evaluation through group affiliation and agreement. Thinkers must consider the interplay of the rights and responsibilities of individuals with the rights and responsibilities of communities found in any society or organization (of people).  A better understanding of the framework of ethical interaction allows us to contemplate productive outcomes more deeply for some of our most difficult moral problems. Awareness of these tensions is a start to becoming more productive in arriving at more ethical outcomes and defraying possible misunderstandings around the thoughts and behavior of those involved.

Moral Reasoning and Determination are not only…  A matter of opinion or personal taste.

This essential question is central to the discussion of moral decision-making:  isn’t morality simply a matter of opinion or personal taste?  This question represents a standard assumption on the part of many.  Other people view morality, ethical thinking, moral reasoning, virtue, and value or values, as simply relativistic or subjective. “ Relativistic ” refers to the belief that our understanding of truth (or what we believe in) is based on our evaluation or perspective. It can be argued that truth comes from a subjective conception, and this viewpoint carries great merit as we understand perception, thinking, and uniqueness. It is also true that moral reasoning or morality must probe more deeply than simply a belief or opinion we possess.  Good thinking requires that we investigate, process and evaluate as many components of possible ethical dilemmas and not only the use of our background, quick assessments, or sole emotional reactions to determine better practices or outcomes.

Relativistic statements of individuals must go further than a simple assertion that they might have on a subject; instead, as the philosopher Dr. James Rachels explains in The Elements of Moral Philosophy , we must employ moral reasoning and virtuous decision-making solidly and constructively, building on the reasoning that is supported by the soundness of thought and consistency of action.  This Starburst candy advertisement demonstrates how important it is to determine when an opinion or personal taste should lead us to evaluate the Truth and how we might begin to use reason to help us transcend evaluations that might be problematic or untrue.

Basic Ethical Constructs of the Western World

Though there are many codes of moral conduct and varying traditions of ethical perspective we could study, I have limited the scope of this course to a series of very strong contributors to our Western world to illustrate how ethical theory and conception have come to define our reality.  These factors have become prominent in some ethical determinations in the Western World and the world at large.  As we consider the climate of increasing globalized networks built upon some of these notions, it is increasingly essential to constructively understand and evaluate the roots of such basic conceptions of morality.

The long conversational history becomes apparent in tracing the background of morality and ethical conduct.  We can find those essential modern conceptions linked to the world of the ancient world of the Greeks and Romans.  Our presumptions of good business, proper conduct, and even the truth of reality have been shaped by the writings and beliefs of individuals predating the fourth century BC.  Central to the Greco-Roman world was the philosophical viewpoint that the meaning of life was somehow connected to this idea of creating a “better life” or moving towards a greater sense of “progress.”

This idea is still present in almost every aspect of our world and can be fundamentally seen in Western culture.  This concept of “ betterment ” or “good” living has impacted our decision-making, creating a society that focuses on growth and the belief that there are better ways to approach various subjects and our lives.

One key component of this Greek belief of “betterment” can be traced to their solid ethical notion of the citizenry and civic responsibility.  Citizens have rights given to them by circumstance or situation, but with rights come responsibilities required of those with privilege.  The Romans took this concept further, believing that the true notion of justice was steeped in ethical importance.  They attempted to set up courts and impartial authority figures connected with the Roman authorities who were tasked with helping those in conflict resolve their issues through productive and just outcomes.  The idea was that society only operates ethically when people are treated fairly and problems are solved to diminish conflict.

The second component is the influence of Christian values and virtues on the development of accepted social norms of thought and behavior in the Western world.  Regardless of one’s religious affiliation, the Western world has been developed using the beliefs Christian principles passed down since the Middle Ages by the Roman Catholic Church.

During this time, many social norms espoused by the Christian establishment became the backbone of European society. They laid the foundation for individual and organizational behavior through law or cultural expectations.  Many of those expectations often associated with Hebraic belief expectations, such as the Ten Commandments, were combined with the teachings of Jesus Christ found in the New Testament.  Those expectations became encapsulated in Christian creeds and lists of behavioral expectations, such as The Seven Deadly Sins , decided by Christian leaders through council decisions.  These decisions were often instituted as laws that kingdoms adopted.  Many concepts of societal values, such as true justice and characteristics of personal values, were taught, reinforced, and passed down from generation to generation, both societally and individually.  In addition, these values or moral expectations were also taught and reinforced in direct conjunction with the Church’s practices.

Beyond the first earlier Western influences we have discussed, there have also been economic ideologies that have come to shape moral thinking and evaluation.  Milton Friedman, one of the most prominent economists of the twentieth century, argued, in a famous 1970 essay termed Friedman’s Thesis , as well as his early text Capitalism and Freedom , “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” arguing that the role of a business should be to maximize profits and not to be concerned with elements of moral responsibility or participate in determining moral “rights” and “wrongs’ within society.  According to his evaluation, institutions, especially for-profit organizations, should only concern themselves with economic decisions that would increase the profitability of shareholders. In this way, morality and market interaction would dictate proper moral decision-making.

Organizations’ freedom to pursue their best interest, namely profit, should determine organizational attitude and behavior as long as they obey the law.  This belief functioned under the assumption that moral assessments should be reserved for the citizens who would make those decisions by purchasing the products or services presented and through the regulations created by legislators who represented those citizens.  This approach profoundly influenced how Western society determined the best moral course of action, arguing that the market would be the best assessor of moral attitude and behavior.

Another layer of this debate centers itself on the tension between philanthropy and charity.  Philanthropy, the offering of financial or resource help to an individual, organization, or society in need with some benefit for the giving organization or individual, has often been interpreted by many as a productive way to invest in a beneficial, moral manner to address critical ethical problems.  It has been argued as the best option for addressing moral and social needs.  In doing so, though, the belief is that what is beneficial for those who need the help should be linked to the benefit of the participating organization.  Charity, in contrast, is centered on the idea that benefits of any kind should be offered without the mutual requirement of exchange.  The debate over what is proper and productive “help” and the morality of how to best offer it as we consider economic results have been at the crux of moral evaluation in the Western world and linked to the debate around Friedman’s Thesis.  Some of that debate has been influenced by moral presumptions connected with the value of work and individual responsibility.  This also includes the assumption that profitability is most important and should influence how we evaluate the most moral course of action.

The moral complexity of individual and society in Western society…Pluralism, dualism, and monism

As alluded to in the last section, the complexity of the interaction of individual and societal beliefs is critical in understanding the context of Western ethical thinking.  Western society has consistently attempted, through the institution of such documents as the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights 1688, and The Constitution of the United States, to define the relationship more clearly between what is individually acceptable behavior and what is collectively accepted as permissible

Rousseau, the famous French-Swiss philosopher of the eighteenth century, referred to this as the concept of a social contract.  At the heart of this interaction is a societal moral value called justice.  Perhaps one of the most controversial legal thinkers of the twentieth century, John Rawls, a prominent professor of law and philosophy at Harvard, asserts that we must know the role of “institutions” or groups of people in moral decision-making.  At the root of the interaction of personal, institutional (which is best defined as any group of individuals), and society at large is the philosophical conception of whether Truth, defined objectively, can be found in a dualistic thinking framework or a monistic thinking conceptualization.

Dualism is the belief that two concepts, ideals, or factors determine truth by their interplay or lack therein, while monism refers to the belief that truth reflects one concept, ideal, or factor.  For a thinker, it is imperative to determine whether problem-solving considers a more dualistic, or perhaps even pluralistic, or multiple-factor approach or a more monistic framework.  As we struggle with proper judgments, one will inevitably conclude that proper conduct and decision-making, as well as good critical thinking, must incorporate a solid and reliable set of rules of conduct or expectations that is inclusive of as many approaches or perspectives as possible while considering the need to determine ethical goals or ideals to progress towards.

Dilemmas at the Heart of Ethical Thinking…

• Justice vs. mercy
• Truth vs. Loyalty
• Individual vs. community
• Short-term goals vs. long-term goals

To further our understanding of ethical thinking, it is useful to dissect moral problems within the context of “value pairings.”  To highlight some of the more critical Western societal values, Rushworth Kidder breaks ethical issues into four major categories that should help us assess moral decision-making.  In How Good People Make Tough Choices:  Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living (1995), he argues that all complex ethical dilemmas have, at their core, many of the following series of troubling pairings that make it challenging to determine the best moral outcome.

Justice versus mercy forces us to consider how we should uphold proper expectations for attitudes and behaviors, emphasizing that everyone should receive what they deserve within society.  This includes the belief that taking responsibility for oneself is important while balancing the belief that it is valuable to consider when to offer leniency to those who might not deserve it or someone who hasn’t taken responsibility.

Truth (objective) versus loyalty presents the dilemma of determining when we or society should adhere to the truth regardless of loyalty and when loyalty to ourselves, others, or institutions might be the most moral course of action.

The construct of individual versus community tension compels us to consider the varied interests of the individual versus the needs and/or desires of a greater community.  This moral dilemma can be present in many different facets of society.

Finally, Kidder iterates that the final dilemma we should consider is the clash between short-term and long-term goal-setting .  There are often compelling cases for when we should choose short-term over long-term goals or vice versa, but knowing when to make the right decision in the right situation is often difficult to determine.  Considering these four dilemmas can not be understated when we evaluate the importance of better critical thinking with the result of more ethical outcomes.  Listen to Patrick Awuah’s discussion (17 minutes) as he uses his experience to emphasize the importance of being a “thinking, moral” leader and how one should look for opportunities to encourage those traits in others.  Making ethical decisions is not easy, but it is necessary.

The Origin of Ethical Determination

Differing perspectives on moral determination have been considered in Western society for centuries.  As a result, many different viewpoints have emerged over time.  It is essential to contemplate the thoughts of some of the greatest thinkers to analyze what is truly at the core of proper moral reasoning and understand what many people today might conclude.

David Hume , a Scottish philosopher of the Eighteenth Century, espoused the viewpoint that people determine what is “right” or “wrong” through experiences filtered by their senses.  Hume’s famous statement that humans are nothing more than “a bundle of perceptions” claims that the core of who we are as individuals is directly tied to our perceptions or how we interpret the world.  Though perception, as a process, may be considered universal in the sense that we, as humans, all participate in it or employ the phenomena, he is quick to point out that each one of us is diverse in those experiences.

Karl Marx, the famous Mid-Nineteenth Century philosopher, is known primarily for his work The Communist Manifesto. Marx wrote that the root of ethical thinking is humans’ economic constraints. The struggle over material goods between those who have and those who have not and how that relationship is worked in society outlines and determines ethical thinking or morality.

The last and most controversial is the work of psychologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud .  Freud believed that ethical thinking is directly tied to our subconscious and found that we find the real motivations for ethical decision-making in the interaction of the id, ego, and superego.  Therefore, morality is based upon our “hidden desires” or “what we really want” when played out against other influences such as societal expectations and/or the interests of others; this reflects the central feature of who we are as individuals but also the weighs that interest against the interest of others.

By contemplating the potential motivating factors that determine ethical thinking in people, we become much more careful in thinking through matters pertaining to decision-making.  In Western society, many thinkers have come to radically different perspectives on what determines ethical thought and action.

Questions at the Root of the Ethical Decision-Making Process

At the root of ethical decision-making are four initial questions that must be contemplated to find answers.

• What does it mean to be good?
• What makes a life a good life?
• What characteristics make up a good human?
• What duties do we have to each other and ourselves?

Critical thinkers may use the following suggestions when confronted with questions.

First, there are no easy answers; attaining satisfactory answers is ongoing.  These questions must be revisited to gain insight and enhance growth over time.

Second, strong and solid reasons require significant thought and the ability to continually question notions that might even be held dear.  Process and result must both be considered. Last, these questions require us to keep ourselves in check by considering the interest of others.

Tough Outcomes May Emerge

Several potential outcomes emerge when important ethical questions are asked.  These questions can cause people to come to certain conclusions that may be unnerving. Additionally, the answers that people often struggle with produce actions and outcomes that present obstacles to moving along with better ethical thinking and problem-solving.

The first problem is the issue of blame .  At the root of blame is the shared realization that change is needed.  Change is often scary and threatening.  As individuals think about ethical issues, they are often confronted by their conscience or reason, prompting them to feel troubled by their thoughts or behaviors.  When integrated with the need to enact some form of change, discomfort can cause people to feel unmotivated or agitated.  It is probably safe to say that most humans do not like change, and this factor alone can cause uncomfortable situations or outcomes, but when we add the topic of moral assessment, there is added pressure and stress.  This video of a dog  illustrates the humorous interaction between the dog “Denver” and his master.  This is a microcosm (in a more humorous manner) of what people might experience.

The second potential problem centers on the issue of obligation or duty.   Ethical issues naturally imply that the change required might dictate a strong sense of obligation that may cause people not to think and act unfairly. Think of a person who has a renewed view of an issue or problem and throws themselves completely into that new approach without realizing that that renewed perspective may not solve ethical issues.  The complexities of obligation can create a crisis as people, in their new understanding, might be torn between loyalties to multiple viewpoints or viewpoints—thus causing even more potential dismay.

The third factor to consider is the issue of the emotional investment of those involved.  Ethical issues often carry with them inherent strong viewpoints and feelings that can surface and may cause individuals to avoid an accurate understanding of the outcomes present.  This emotional investment may lead to false admiration for those involved in the decision or leaders who enact what is perceived to be the better moral decision or process.  This can lead to an inaccurate result or view of the situation.

Last might be the ethical dilemma of not knowing the result that an ethical decision might produce .  How does one truly know that they are correct, or what we have come to think is the proper outcome will indeed yield that result?  The prospect of this can be frightening for many people.  The more we know how people react in circumstances linked to ethical tensions and outcomes, the better we identify these tendencies in ourselves and others and work to allay those fears.  This is perhaps one of the most important factors to consider and why an ethics-based education is essential.

Awuah, P. (2007, June). How to educate leaders? Liberal arts. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/patrick_awuah_on_educating_leaders

Denver Official Guilty Dog Video. (2011, March 08). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=B8ISzf2pryI

Horowitz, D. (2011, March). Philosophy in prison. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/damon_horowitz_philosophy_in_prison

Kitson, A., & Campbell, R. (2001). Case studies in business ethics. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), Business ethics: Critical perspectives on business and management (Vol. IV, pp. 7–12). London: Routledge.

May, S. (2012). Case studies in organizational communication: Ethical perspectives and practices. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Ronda, N. (2011, June 19). Starburst- Commercial [funny]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jodb9lkwnd8

Chapter 2--Morality and Decision Making Copyright © 2018 by Christopher Brooks is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Moral Dilemmas

• Open Access
• First Online: 11 April 2019

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Øyvind Kvalnes 2  

279k Accesses

6 Citations

4 Altmetric

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 real and false dilemmas. The former 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. The latter are 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.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

• Moral dilemma
• Real dilemma
• False dilemma

Anne is the project manager for a large industrial project (run by a Nordic company) in a developing country. On a crucial day during the project, the entire plant’s electricity suddenly went out. Large quantities of cement were beginning to congeal in their mixers, and it was crucial to quickly reactivate them. More than one thousand employees were unable to do their work. Anne contacted the local authorities to solve the problem. A bureaucrat turned up at the plant and explained that he could turn the electricity back on very quickly—on the condition that he be allowed to bring ten of the company’s PCs back to the town hall, which had a desperate shortage of PCs that was preventing the bureaucrat and his colleagues from providing adequate service to the local community. Thus, he suggested a trade-off: PCs for electricity. In this manner, Anne and her company had the option to make a significant contribution to the local community.

Time was of the essence, and Anne had little time to dwell on the alternatives. There was no time to contact her supervisors in the firm’s home country for advice or instructions. She had to figure the situation out by herself. If the cement were to congeal, that would mean a considerable delay in the project, and several operations would have to be redone, at a high cost. That cost would be much higher than that of losing ten PCs, which could be easily replaced. Anne also had sympathy for the local bureaucrats and (the population they serve), who she believed would probably make very good use of the PCs. On the other hand, the demand was blackmail, and if she gave in this time, then it may happen again at other crucial stages of the project. Anne faced a difficult choice. What should she do?

Anne wanted to honor not just the moral value of finishing the project on time and within budget but also that of not giving in to blackmail and corruption. One of these values had to give way. There was no way in which Anne could act in a completely moral manner.

Moral dilemmas such as Anne’s are pervasive in working life. They occur in the public and private sectors and in organizations of all sizes. Any decision-maker can encounter them, whether at the executive level or below. In hectic working environments, people can become blind to their moral dilemmas, thus failing to see the moral dimensions of their choices. Understanding the nature of moral dilemmas is an important prerequisite to identifying them and finding ways in which to deal with them responsibly. Kidder ( 2005 ) suggested that, although there are myriad potential moral dilemmas, they tend to fall into four patterns: truth versus loyalty, individual versus community, short term versus long term, and justice versus virtue. Categorizing moral dilemmas in this manner can be a useful way to start addressing them.

Morality can be understood as a set of personal and shared beliefs about what is right and wrong in interpersonal interactions (Goodpaster, 1992 , p. 111). Over time, individuals and groups form moral convictions and beliefs about how they ought to behave toward others. The universe of beings that people have moral obligations toward can include other animals. The concepts of morality and ethics are understood to be synonymous in many contexts. Indeed, at the outset, the concepts had the same meaning. The term morality has Latin roots, whereas the term ethics stems from classical Greek, but both words originally referred to respectable behavior in a given society. Gradually, however, these concepts have become labels for different phenomena. As noted above, morality can be defined as a set of beliefs and convictions about right and wrong; this concept applies to interpersonal interactions, as well as to people’s obligations toward animals. Ethics, on the other hand, is the academic discipline of thinking systematically about right and wrong (Kvalnes & Øverenget, 2012 ). People learn morality and ethics in different ways. Moral beliefs and convictions are typically adopted through social interaction, whereas ethics is an academic discipline that must be learned by reading books, attending seminars, and such. There are ethics courses and exams, but there are no equivalent activities for morality; there are only moral tests, both in everyday life and in more extraordinary situations. A person’s actions on these tests determine whether that person is living in accordance with his or her moral convictions.

Morality and ethics play different roles in decision-making. The core difference can be outlined in the following manner:

A person facing a challenging situation can have a moral intuition about what would be the right choice, based on personal moral convictions, more or less shared in the community or culture. He or she can also engage in ethical analysis in order to clarify the issues at stake. (Kvalnes & Øverenget, 2012 , p. 5)

This distinction is similar to the one that Kahneman ( 2013 ) draws between fast and slow decision-making processes. Kahneman divided these processes into System 1 thinking, which is quick and impulsive, and System 2 thinking, which is slow and analytical. When a person faces a morally challenging situation, he or she can draw upon the resources of both systems. There may not be time for a full-scale analysis of the options at hand, however, and the person may have to rely on a gut feeling or moral impulse. Kahneman documented how people are prone to making mistakes when they rely solely on quick thinking and what their hearts tell them in the moment (Kahneman, 2013 ). People can reap great benefits from activating the slower System 2 processes when weighing alternatives. However, those who rely too heavily on analysis can become passive and immobile in situations that call for rapid responses. In some cases, by the time that an action has been thoroughly considered, it is too late to take the correct course.

People have both System 1 and System 2 resources in place to think about and respond to moral dilemmas. On the one hand are moral intuitions and gut feelings about what should be done; these are based on moral beliefs and convictions. On the other hand are opportunities to engage in ethical analysis so as to identify alternative courses of action and test whether those options are justified.

A dilemma, in the most general sense, is a situation that requires a choice between two options that are (or seem to be) equally undesirable or unsatisfactory. There are nonmoral dilemmas, in which the choice is between options that are undesirable or unsatisfactory for reasons other than morality. For instance, if a person seeks to buy both a book and a shirt but can only afford to purchase one of them, choosing one over the other will inevitably lead to disappointment, in that it will fulfill only one of the two desires. There need not be any moral dimension to this decision for it to be a dilemma.

A moral dilemma is a situation in which the decision-maker has to give priority to one moral value over another (Brinkmann, 2005 ; Maclagan, 2003 ; Toffler, 1986 ). Such dilemmas “arise when, faced with a difficult situation (e.g. fair treatment for some versus job security for others), two or more such values conflict in the perception of a decision-maker, or when one is assessing another’s moral choice” (Maclagan, 2003 , p. 22). A person who faces a dilemma must decide which moral duty to prioritize; “whichever action is taken … will offend an important moral value” (Maclagan, 2003 , p. 23).

In a moral dilemma, it is impossible to live up to all of one’s moral convictions and beliefs regarding how one should behave in that situation. In the opening example, Anne was morally committed to both keep the industrial project on track and reject the blackmail attempt. In that situation, one of these moral commitments had to give way at the expense of the other. She did not have a clear System 1 intuition, and even after initial System 2 reflection, the dilemma and tension remained. Her supervisors in the company’s home country were unavailable, so she had to respond to the bureaucrat’s offer on her own.

A moral dilemma can occur because of a prior personal mistake. This is called a self-inflicted dilemma. A classic example is the Bible story about King Herod. On Herod’s birthday, his stepdaughter Salome danced so well that he promised to give her whatever she wanted. Salome consulted her mother about what she should wish for, and she decided to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. The king now had a choice between honoring the promise to his stepdaughter and honoring the life of John the Baptist. The king had inadvertently designed a moral trap for himself—a dilemma in which, whatever he decided, he would be acting immorally.

One contemporary and everyday instance of a self-inflicted moral dilemma involves double booking. Say that an individual makes separate and incompatible promises to two people she will be somewhere at 2:00. She cannot keep both promises and thus must choose which one to break. She may have good moral reasons to keep both promises, but she must choose between them.

In a narrow sense, a moral dilemma is a situation in which the moral values at stake are of equal importance. In this example, the two appointments have equally strong pull and significance. The individual’s moral reasons for keeping the two promises are thus equally strong. Neither choice is less wrong than the other. This situation is one in which moral wrongdoing is inescapable (Gowans, 1994 ).

In a wider sense, there can be moral dilemmas in which a person has strong moral reasons to act in one way, as well as notable—but not equally strong—moral reasons to act in another way. When considering the nature of two promises, it may be reasonable to conclude that it is better to fulfill one rather than the other. Deciding to keep the former promise and break the latter means a loss of some moral value, but it is not really a hard moral choice, as no one will have reason to challenge or cast doubt upon the rightness of the decision. The choice, in other words, is between a lesser wrong and a greater wrong. If an individual double-books, but one meeting has a higher priority than the other, the person whose meeting is canceled will be disappointed and irritated but will likely understand the decision based on the priority of keeping the other promise.

In the Herod case, there is an imbalance in the moral weight of the two options. Herod, in his exuberance, made a questionable promise to Salome, and in turn, she took advantage of the situation and made a horrific request. Herod had stronger moral reasons to spare the life of John the Baptist than he had to keep his word to his stepdaughter. He would give up some moral value either way, but one option was morally superior. This situation can still be called a moral dilemma—although not in the pure sense of representing a decision between moral values that are on equal footing.

False moral dilemmas are instances in which it is clear what ought to be done but in which there is temptation or pressure to act in another way. In business ethics, the distinction between true and false dilemmas has also been described as the distinction between dilemmas and temptations (Brinkmann, 2005 , p. 183; Kidder, 1995 , p. 7). Later in the book, I discuss professional ethics and how the handling of conflicts of interest are at the core of professionals’ moral responsibilities toward clients, customers, patients, students, and other users of professional services. For instance, lawyers and accountants can be tempted to prioritize self-interest over their clients’ interests. The knowledge gap between the professionals and the clients is such that the risk that clients will detect such choices is minimal. The professionals may claim that they are facing moral dilemmas when, for example, opportunities arise to overcharge clients. In the vocabulary of this book, the most appropriate term for such a situation is false dilemma . This situation may resemble a real dilemma in that the decision-maker must decide between two options that are both undesirable in some way, as cheating the client feels wrong, but so does turning down a chance to earn extra money. However, the former feeling has a moral component that is lacking in the latter. Thus, conflict-of-interest situations are generally false moral dilemmas with only superficial similarities to real dilemmas.

In connection with the dichotomy between real and false dilemmas, the continuum between them needs to be acknowledged, as Maclagan ( 2003 ) suggested. On one side of the spectrum, there are situations in which there is perfect balance between the opposing moral values. For example, being compassionate toward another person and being honest with that person can have equal moral weight. On the other side of the spectrum are situations in which one option is clearly morally right and the other is clearly morally wrong, as when a professional must choose between self-interest and clients’ interests. In some other cases that involve self-interest, however, the distinctions are not so clear-cut; for instance, pursuing self-interest on an organizational level can have some moral value. Concrete cases belong somewhere on the spectrum between purely real and purely false dilemmas.

Anne had to decide whether to get the plant’s electricity back by giving in to the blackmail from the local bureaucrat, or to stand firm and allow for a costly delay. How exactly should this situation be classified: as a real or false dilemma? This depends on the details of the case. The analysis that Anne had to make in preparation for her decision did not require her to precisely place the dilemma on this scale, but it did require her to acknowledge the nature of the situation in general. In Anne’s case, she decided on a two-step response. First, she handed over the PCs so that the bureaucrat would turn the electricity back on, thus getting the project on track again. Second, she invited the senior bureaucrats from the nearby town to a meeting in which she explained that the company wanted to contribute to the local community—but not in such a haphazard way. Instead, she proposed a systematic plan in which the company would help the town to modernize its electronic equipment. With this initiative, Anne came to be on better terms with the local administrators, thus avoiding further blackmail situations.

The following case from Kvalnes and Øverenget ( 2012 , p. 4) can serve to highlight how challenging a situation can be even when it is close to the false dilemma end of the spectrum:

Ben is the manager of a small private banking unit within a large financial services group. Results have slumped recently, mainly due to a bitter conflict between one employee and some of his colleagues. They complain that he is rude and difficult to cooperate with. Ben has attempted to mitigate, to no avail. National legislation prohibits the option of firing the quarrelsome employee, at least in the short run. Key members of Ben’s unit have become very upset by the situation and have started to look for work elsewhere. A recent turn of events is that the employee himself has applied for a job in a different part of the financial services group. Ben has agreed to serve as a reference person. He receives a phone call from the manager of the unit currently contemplating to hire the employee. She is particularly interested in the employee’s social skills. “Does he function well with his colleagues?” she asks. If Ben gives an honest answer, he is likely to be stuck with the employee for a long time. If he is vague about the employee’s social skills, he may get rid of a problem. He then runs the risk that his honesty will come up for questioning later. It also feels wrong to lie to another person in order to get rid of a problem at work. Lying in this case would be an attempt to transport one’s own problem over to someone else, instead of taking responsibility and deal with it in one’s own organization. How should Ben respond to the question about the employee’s social abilities?

In this example, Ben had to choose between being honest about an employee’s antisocial behavior and telling the truth, which would prevent the employee’s ability to move to another organization. Like Anne, Ben acknowledged that, regardless of what he decided to do, it would be wrong.

At first glance, this appears to be an obvious example of a false dilemma. Ben’s choice was between the moral value of being truthful to others and the selfish desire to get rid of a human resources problem. It was tempting for him to withhold information and thereby help the difficult employee move to a new job, but doing so would have violated Ben’s moral duty to be honest in business dealings. Ben could have reasoned that the employee deserved another chance in a new work environment. By this logic, if the employee were allowed to start anew in his career, he might be better able to fulfill his personal and professional potential. That is all very well, but that consideration is relatively weak and clearly is meant to camouflage a violation of the moral requirement to be straightforward and honest when acting as a reference person.

The extent to which Ben’s situation is a real or a false dilemma depends on the details of the case. I have used this case as a starting point when teaching ethics to both business managers and business-school students, as well as in research on moral psychology, the purpose of which was to map the extent that this situation creates moral dissonance, thus causing managers to engage in moral neutralization (Kvalnes, 2014 ). I return to this topic in Chap. 13 .

People’s responses to Ben’s dilemma reveal their moral convictions. When I ask for justifications regarding the choice of whether to be truthful, the participants in my ethics courses have come up with a wide variety of reasons, thus expressing their individual loyalties and preferences. People’s first responses are often based on their gut feelings, which cause one option to instantly feel right or wrong. These are from System 1, in which intuitions are dominant; my task as the facilitator is to introduce the participants to the slower System 2 type of reflection and analysis (Kahneman, 2013 ). Ethical reasoning involves slowing down to become aware of the moral issues at stake and progressing from a state of mismatching feelings to one in which the participants are able to recognize the ethical and moral foundations for their own choices.

Moral dilemmas are omnipresent in organizations. Situations on all parts of the scale, from acutely real dilemmas to false pseudo-dilemmas, constitute challenges that decision-makers should prepare for. The following four chapters describe analytical resources from moral philosophy and ethics. These principles and concepts can serve as tools for determining what one ought to do and for justifying one’s choices regarding moral dilemmas.

Brinkmann, J. (2005). Understanding insurance customer dishonesty: Outline of a situational approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 61 (2), 183–197.

Article   Google Scholar  

Goodpaster, K. E. (1992). Business ethics. In L. C. Becker & C. B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics . New York: Garland Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Gowans, C. (1994). Innocence lost . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kidder, R. M. (1995). How good people make tough choices . New York: Morrow.

Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral courage: Taking action when your values are put to the test . New York: William Morrow.

Kvalnes, Ø. (2014). Leadership and moral neutralisation. Leadership, 10 (4), 456–470.

Kvalnes, Ø., & Øverenget, E. (2012). Ethical navigation in leadership training. Etikk i praksis-Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 1 , 58–71.

Maclagan, P. (2003). Varieties of moral issue and dilemma: A framework for the analysis of case material in business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 48 (1), 21–32.

Toffler, B. L. (1986). Tough choices: Managers talk ethics . New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Leadership and Organizational Development, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

Øyvind Kvalnes

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Kvalnes, Ø. (2019). Moral Dilemmas. In: Moral Reasoning at Work. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15191-1_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15191-1_2

Published : 11 April 2019

Publisher Name : Palgrave Pivot, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-15190-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-15191-1

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples

An ethical dilemma essay has become an essential part of education for many professions that involve working with people. Below, we’ve collected topics for writing a paper on this subject.

🏆 Best Ethical Dilemma Essay Examples & Topics

📌 simple & easy ethical dilemma essay topics, 💡 most interesting ethical dilemma topics to write about, 🎓 good research topics about ethical dilemma, ✍️ ethical dilemma essay topics for college, ❓ questions for ethical dilemmas.

The concepts of ethics and moral dilemmas have originated long ago. They heavily influence the process of decision-making in a variety of fields, from social work and healthcare to a simple office workplace. Thus, you have to approach the ethical dilemma topic carefully. Writing a paper on the phenomenon should rely on locating the available evidence and citing the latest sources.

In this article, our team has gathered titles for your academic essay. Besides, with our tips and ethical dilemma paper examples, you will understand how to research and write it.

Emotional intelligence essays are an essential part of education for many professions that involve working with people, such as managers and teachers.

The concept is somewhat new, having been first introduced half a century ago and popularized at the end of the last century.

As such, you have to approach the topic carefully and rely on the latest available evidence to avoid citing outdated ideas.

Furthermore, as with any psychology-related topic, you should exhibit general caution and avoid the numerous pitfalls associated with the study of the human mind.

This article will help you understand what you should or should not do to write an excellent paper.

Here are some further tips for your work:

• Psychology relies on scenarios where a person’s behavior can be as free of outside factors as possible. Toddler observation and scholarly experiments with carefully selected conditions are excellent examples of such situations, and you should use them to ground your descriptions in reality.
• Be sure to adhere to academic guidelines, avoiding the use of first person, calls to action, and other additions that do not match the format. This approach is useful in general, as it applies to most essays and will be beneficial for future reports and similar submissions.
• Write an emotional intelligence essay introduction and conclusion at the end of your paper. They make your work easier to read by giving it structure and direction. The introduction should contain a description of the topic and a thesis statement, and the conclusion should sum up the main points.
• Try to set a central theme and address it in your essay instead of providing a general overview of the topic. There are many emotional intelligence essay questions that can be answered in considerable detail. As such, you should concentrate on one of them without getting distracted and sidetracked.

Come to IvyPanda for ethical dilemma essay examples as well as various titles that will help you begin your writing process!

• An Ethical Dilemma Faced by Nestle: Case Analysis International staffing and development help Nestle to organize human resources in accordance with the needs of the company and its strategic goals.
• BP Oil Company Ethical Dilemma The damages caused by the spill originated from the effects of the oil on the environment and the damaging effects of the cleanup activities.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Justice If one is to discuss the issue with the senior management of the organization in which the crime occurred, there is a high chance that the issue will not be taken as seriously due to […]
• Ethical Dilemma: Example, Problem, and Solution | Essay Example Secondly, I was supposed to show other employees that no one is above the policies of this company and if anyone commits a mistake the individual must be punished.
• Richard Angelo: A Serial Killer and His Ethical Dilemma The convicted claimed he made the injections to cause crises to be able to revive patients and become a hero in front of his colleagues.
• Family Therapy: Ethical Dilemmas One of the ethical dilemmas in the case is that of deciding whether or not to disclose the information about Breen’s relationship with her boyfriend to her parents.
• Ethical Dilemma of Child Abuse In the above example, a nurse has to apply rational judgment to analyze the extent and threats when making decisions in the best interest of the victim of child abuse.
• Samsung’s Ethical Dilemma of Child Labor The paper will critically analyze the ethical dimensions of the dilemma from the perspective of the utilitarian ethical theory. It will be argued that according to the fundamental principles of the theory, the company’s behavior […]
• The Ford Pinto Case and Ethical Dilemma Lee Iacocca, the Ford company’s president, was accused of disregarding the need to improve the safety of Pinto cars due to the increased cost.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Counselling and Treatment Methods The case of Brett has become an ethical issue based on the following; questions are revolving around what information can be released to the parents and parents request to review the diagnosis since no procedure […]
• Public Administration Ethical Dilemma and Theories Smith should take the responsibility of ensuring that the needs of the majority are upheld since the welfare of the community, and the organization is of importance.
• Early Childhood Education Center’s Ethical Dilemma Therefore, it is necessary to involve different people in the discussion of this case because there are several ethical responsibilities applied to a new child, the children of the class, the staff, parents, and the […]
• Ethical Dilemmas Facing Teachers The proponents of this system claim that it is authentic and offers a first hand experience to the learners. The needs in this system include having a strong foundation in the areas that the knowledge […]
• Ethical Dilemma in Nursing: Case Study Today, being a nurse is associated with a number of complexities due to the need to comply with diverse obligations in social, political, and healthcare segments.
• Ethical Dilemmas in the “21” Movie At the beginning of the movie, we mistakenly take his attitude for granted, but the development of the plot discloses the negative consequences of the Professor’s actions.
• The Ethical Dilemma: Siemens In relation to the above dilemmas, the bounded bribery applies to the psychological tendency of the conspirators to fulfill selfish interests of self enrichment at the expense of the shareholders’ goals and objectives.
• Kazuo Ishiguro’s “Never Let Me Go” and Major Ethical Dilemmas Raised Some claim that since clones are created in a laboratory with the help of specific tools and with the number of certain genes, they cannot be regarded as humans. In conclusion, it is necessary to […]
• The Unocal Firm’s Ethical Dilemma in Burma The oil corporation was eager to investigate oil potential in Burma, a place that the rest of the world had abandoned due to several problems.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Social Workers’ Practice In order to resolve the emerging dilemma, it is necessary to identify the involved stakeholders, model two possible courses of events, evaluate the implications of each and come to a conclusion regarding the preferential option […]
• Ethical Dilemma of a 2016 TV Commercial for Milk by Juhayna At the end of the ad, the creators claim that Juhayna’s milk is the best in Egypt after Dondou. The message presented in the advertisement can influence the decision of mothers to stop breastfeeding, which […]
• Ethical Dilemma: Counselors Engaging in Relations with Clients They should keep a boundary in the way they relate to the clients to ensure that their relationship with the client does no harm or pose potential harm to the clients.
• Post-Dated Cheque Ethical Dilemma in Accounting First, the recipients of the delayed check will lose interest corresponding to the duration of the delay. In this scenario, Tabitha will be held responsible for the unethical actions and the incurrence of losses by […]
• Hyundai Dispatch Workers and Ethical Dilemma According to the workers, the leadership of Hyundai was responsible for the safety of the employees at the workplace. The representatives of the temporary employees occupied the company requiring changes in the employment terms.
• Arranged Marriage and Its Ethical Dilemma His family would be happy to see him married to the person they chose, and his father would save his reputation.
• Ethical Dilemmas: An Analysis of Two Cases In the case of IVF, such a procedure is prohibited according to Joe and Mary’s religion which means that they must not engage in it.
• Resolving Ethical Dilemmas Considering that this may be an argument between younger and older generations, one can argue that there is a significant difference between the way that both house owners and the person that wants to buy […]
• Ethical Dilemma in “The Reader” Film by S. Daldry She is surprised and confused by the hypocrisy of the judges and her co-defendants, who act as if they do not remember that period and as if they were not part of that society.
• Wasta (Nepotism) Ethical Dilemma at the Workplace Moreover, with the present social costs in our society that have arisen through the use of wasta, it is impossible to justify the use of wasta in hiring and performing business transactions.
• California Micro Devices Company: Ethical Dilemma In 1989, Price Waterhouse, the firm’s chief auditor, observed that the company was engaging in questionable accounting practices and business dealings.
• Ethical Dilemma and Environmental Surveillance Companies, for example, Planet Labs and Digital Globe have dispatched many miniaturized satellites in the most recent year with the objective of recording the status of the whole earth in real-time.
• An Ethical Dilemma and Lapse in Business An ethical dilemma and lapse differ in the people’s motivation driving decisions. Meanwhile, an ethical lapse occurs due to an unethical conversation involving selective quoting and misleading audiences.
• Ethical Dilemma of Parental Refusal From Children’s Vaccination Kerry attempts to convince the Smiths of the relevance of vaccination in preventing infection by chronic diseases. Autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are ethical principles applicable in resolving the moral issue of whether or not […]
• Ethical Dilemmas in Workplace Analysis Therefore, the main purpose of this project is to explore the types of dilemmas and the factors that affect the workers response to the dilemmas in a workplace.
• Ethical Dilemma in the Psychologists Career Therefore, the dilemma that I faced as a school psychologist dealing with the psychological issues of Ayesha has been the ethical choice needed to be taken between what is good and what is wrong that […]
• Ethical Dilemma in Mental Health Patient Care My ethical response to the situation was that Catherine should only be attended to by the female staff especially when she was naked and that only the female staff needed to have access to the […]
• Drug-Testing: Utilitarian Theory Ethical Dilemma This is because, given the fact that Utilitarian theory’s foremost theoretical premise is being concerned with the notion of amaximization of benefits’ 1, it will only be logical, on my part, to assume that the […]
• Ethical Dilemmas Within Organisations During the COVID-19 The moral analysis of the acts of the management of Britannia Hotel can also be analyzed based on the ethics of duties with an emphasis on the individual.
• Decision Making Challenges Facing Ethical Dilemma In the same way the performance of line managers is judged by the quality of the decisions they make. From the management of Herbs garden products, the following steps could be taken: State the problem […]
• Global Poverty: The Ethical Dilemma Unfortunately, a significant obstacle to such global reforms is that many economic systems are based on the concept of inequality and exploitation.
• “Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice” by Pollock If hunting is the primary means of survival of a particular society, the euthanasia of the elderly and the sick can be deemed acceptable.
• Ethical Dilemma in Journalism A good example is the clause in the code of ethics that states that reporters are supposed to show reverence to the privacy and dignity of the public.
• Dementia: Ethical Dilemmas Opting to withdraw the tube may lead to the physiological deprivation of the patient and as a result, the worst-case scenario is the death of the patient.
• Cultural Clash in the Board Room: An Ethical Dilemma Among Top Management in Almond China The first option he has is to resign from the company because he says that one of the reasons that motivated him to join the company is the values and standards the company up holds.
• Ethical Dilemma in Law Enforcement: Confidentiality and Misuse of Information Additionally, Badpenny’s choice to reveal private information was affected by the organizational structure of the University City Police Department and the Grantham County Sheriff’s Office.
• Ethical Dilemma of Stopping City Authority In this scenario, the ethical dilemma is balancing the duty to enforce the law with the potential harm that could be caused by a public arrest of a fellow officer.
• Ethical Dilemma Analysis: Criminal Justice Case The publicity of the case added another layer of complexity to the decision, as either verdict would alienate a part of the population.
• The Ethical Dilemma of Navigating Disagreements in Nursing Care Disputes arise when nurses have different opinions on the type, frequency, and effectiveness of specific care options for a patient due to the differences in their scope of practice and focus.
• Ethical Dilemma in Healthcare: Privacy and the Right to Know Moreover, the staff cannot ignore the fact that Tina is likely to be wrong in her decision not to reveal the diagnosis to Victoria.
• Ethical Dilemmas Regarding Rape and Abortion Therefore, this paper discusses the module 8 case study and related cases regarding rape and abortion, applying dialectical thinking to the module 8 case and why Mary in the case study should not undergo abortion […]
• Hiring the Previously Convicted Cybercriminals: Ethical Dilemma The deontological theory focuses not on the consequences of an act but on the intentions and desire of a person to act for the benefit of others.
• Ethical Dilemmas Hindering Provision of Health Services in Tanzania The strikes have always been linked to two issues: 1) the working conditions of doctors, including infrastructure, the availability of medicines, equipment, and other medical supplies, and 2) the underpayment of wages and benefits.
• Analysis of Ethical Dilemma: Euthanasia One of these is the right to live, which includes much more than the ability to simply exist, and suggests an adherence to a minimum of quality and self-determination.
• Domestic Violence Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Justice Various ethical issues such as the code of silence, the mental status of the offender, and limited evidence play a vital role in challenging the discretion of police officers in arresting the DV perpetrators.
• Researching of IT Ethical Dilemmas In addition, there are Notified Data Breach Laws that oblige businesses and CSPs to report the incident to the government and all users of the service and customers in the event of a data breach.
• The Legal and Ethical Dilemma in Dental Health The objective side of the crime in the case of silencing the incompetence of a colleague in dentistry is expressed in the failure to fulfill the duties of the statement to the appropriate authorities.
• Ethical Dilemmas: Cases Analysis In the case of Joe and Marie, natural law theory also demonstrates that ethically the IVF procedure is morally justified for several reasons.
• Ethical Dilemma of Patient Care Delivery However, the administration of more pain depressants is likely to escalate the addiction problem while the denial of the medication will aggravate the patient’s suffering.
• Ethical Dilemma of Saving Customers’ Personal Information The key point of the action was to be in line with the company’s code of ethics and, at the same time, show the wrongdoing of the colleague’s action to himself.
• Truth vs. Loyalty: Tinkov’s Ethical Dilemma Moreover, his pacifist text and critique of the Russian aggression and dictatorship made Tinkov’s life unsafe. He chose truthfulness and freedom from greed over political loyalty and the well-being of his business.
• Ethical Dilemma: Gun Violence Discussion The teaching of access or locked on the presence of weapons in people for a long time is a reason for discussion.
• Legal-Ethical Dilemma in Nursing An example of an urgent legal-ethical dilemma is the one reported and described by a practicing nurse and a patient, Marylyn.
• Nurses’ Ethical Dilemmas in the Work Environment According to the scenario of Mr. According to the scenario of Mr.
• Ethical Dilemma: The Missing Needle Protector Health care professionals and patients have to develop a level of trust to support the recovery process for patients and the status of the hospital.
• The Concept of Ethical Dilemmas To evaluate this, such professionals should be subject to constant psychological and physical monitoring, observing the degree of their suitability for work.
• Ethical Dilemma of Abortion Triumphalism In this issue and other matters, the affected person’s experience may not be a determining factor for the expression of opinion but is unique.
• Self-Determination and Ethical Dilemma of Assisted Suicide The reason for both euthanasia and assisted suicide, the difference between which is in who actively ends the life, the doctor or the patient, is ending unbearable pain.
• Ethical Dilemma Regarding Forced Vaccination It seems that people are already used to restrictive measures from the government and have accepted the need to use masks in public places, but the introduction of compulsory vaccination and the resulting bans proved […]
• Ethical Dilemma: The Case Study Thus, a difficult dilemma emerged for Ali, who by eating the meal would violate his religious obligations and by refusing it would show disrespect to the hosts, and especially the mother of the colleague.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Public Health Such an action could be unwelcomed by the health agencies, and their employees, but, at the same time, the research needs to depict an accurate analysis of the performance of the health programs.
• The Ethical Dilemma in Guantanamo Bay Prison in the USA In Guantanamo Bay, it is the role of soldiers to ensure justice and protection of human rights. However, the housing of these prisoners and the condition of the Guantanamo Bay detainee camp is ethical.
• Ethical Dilemma and Ethics and Honest Reporting And adhering to the principle of rights, professions have an ethical duty to evaluate the consequences of a particular decision they make in relation to the rights of other people.
• The Ethical Dilemma on Abortion From the perspective of the Christian philosophy, a person is a product and manifestation of the love of God, hence the sanctity of any human life.
• Ethical Dilemma at Abura Petrol Station He felt grateful to his friend for offering a job and wanted to meet the hopes of the petrol network’s owner.
• Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding Self-Driving Cars The video taken showed that the driver in the car was shocked and could not do anything to save the woman.
• Civil-Military Tension as Ethical Dilemma The first is to accept the situation as it is without questions, strictly following the orders and observing the limitations of their inferior position as consultants to the government.
• Aspects of Media Ethical Dilemmas While all three sources have a goal of informing the audience of Burrous’s passing, the extent to which they unveil the details differs depending on the context, the source’s relation to the anchor, and the […]
• Ethical Dilemma: Benefiting from High-Conflicting Personality The primary reason for the potential ignorance of one’s wrongdoing is the positive consequences of their actions that outweigh the total harm they bring.
• Ethical Dilemma. Legal Protection for Employee On the other hand, the leaving colleague might have a change of heart and remain with the original company, so revealing the plans to the boss will affect his opportunities.
• Abortion as Moral and Ethical Dilemma Despite the conflicting approaches to solving the moral and ethical dilemma of abortion, experts agree that it is possible to reduce the severity of the problem with the help of more excellent sexual education of […]
• “Ethical Dilemmas in MNCs’ International Staffing Policies” by Banai and Sama The paper assumes that in the age of the rise of global international corporations international staffing policies acquire the top priority because of their impact on outcomes.
• Ethical Dilemma Analysis: Easyriders v. Hannigan Hunnigan represents the case of California motorcyclists filing a suit against the Commissioner of California Highway Patrol for the purpose of permanent injunction against stopping motorcyclists on the ground of officer’s subjective opinion that helmets […]
• Contemporary Ethical Reflection: Ethical and Legal Dilemmas in Health Care The counties also blamed the state for being ignorant of the problem of adequate financing of the Medicaid program on supporting the poor and disables.
• Ethical Dilemmas in the Hiibel Legal Case in Nevada The search had a reasonable suspicion since, during the investigation of the assault, Hiibel was within the area of search, and when he was asked his name, he failed to answer the police officer.
• Baby and Mother: End of Life Ethical Dilemma To sum the above mentioned, it should be mentioned that patients, physicians, and caregivers face a lot of dilemmas in regards to life situations.
• Unethical Practices: Michael Jackson, Ethical Dilemma The case between the people and the king of pop, Michael Jackson, elicited two main ethical concerns: the passion of the prosecutor to convict the defendant and the possibility of the prosecutor to be an […]
• Noting the Error in Projections: Scott Bestor’s Ethical Dilemma The second ethical issue is balancing the expectations of the management and the consequences of reporting the error in projections. Scott is aware that reporting the error to the management might result in disciplinary action […]
• Behavior of a Police Officer Within an Ethical Dilemma First and foremost, one should note that one of the most typical ethical concerns in the relevant field is the cases of discrimination on the ground of the national origin.
• Ethical Dilemma in Nursing Practice The psychologist can help the patient deal with the emotional aspect of pain. These skills empower the patient to cope with the pain and the side effects of treatment.
• Accounting: Ethical Dilemmas Equally, I will consider the repercussions of agreeing to the command. I will also consider being a whistleblower and report the matter to the relevant authorities.
• The Ethical Dilemma in Nursing One of the most common ethical dilemmas that advanced practice nurses face is the lack of consent on the part of the patient.
• Abortion: An Ethical Dilemma and Legal Position The core concerns in the controversy are whether women should have the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy or whether the unborn child has the right to life.
• Ethical Dilemma in Nursing Finding a solution to the ethical issues in Max’s case was important because failure to do so would have different consequences for the patient, the parents, and the caregivers.
• Moral, Ethical and Legal Dilemmas of Suicide Since it is a duty of medical practitioners to treat and care for patients, it would be immoral to allow a patient to commit suicide.
• Asthma and Medications: The Ethical Dilemma in Treating Children One of the major causes of dilemma, however, is the inability to manage and treat the condition in children under the age of 7 years due to ethical dilemma.
• Ethical and Moral Dilemmas in Accounting and Business Entities This may paint a wrong picture of the actual position of the company and may lead to collapsing if irregularities are not addressed as in the case of Enron.
• An Ethical Dilemma – Religious Belief Versus Medical Practice In the first step, the ethical dilemma is between the principle of beneficence in the treatment of meningitis and the principle of autonomy with respect to the decision of the parents.
• Ethical Dilemma for Sam Torres In this case, it is possible to distinguish several ethical issues: 1) the conflict between Sam’s professional principles and his private interest such as desire to retain his job; 2) the interests of Bull & […]
• Ethical Dilemmas That Practitioners Face in the Company According to the findings of the commission, it was discovered that ethical issues affecting the police body has to do with process corruption, issue of gratuities and improper associations, substance abuse, fraudulent practices, assaults and […]
• Ethical Dilemmas in Business Processes Henry on the other hand is a manager and we are not told whether his organization is prepared to allow all staff to make use of such offers as that which Claire has provided in […]
• Virtue Ethics: One Way to Resolve an Ethical Dilemma Other members of the usability team argue that although there was a clear loophole that the external members can choose to exploit so that they can be released from the work that they need to […]
• Ethical Dilemma: Parental Notification The main issue that is to be addressed is that the boy asks the counselor not to notify his parents about the drug problem, but is it ethical to keep this information confidential?
• Abortion: Ethical Dilemma in Pope John Paul II’s View This paper tries to examine the abortion ethical dilemma from the lens of the Pope’s thoughts and proposals. Towards the end of the 20th century, new ideas and thoughts began to emerge in different parts […]
• LinkedIn Ethical Dilemma The candidates most likely to be recruited by the employers using the LinkedIn website are the premium account holders whose applications appear at the top of the applications pile.
• The Ethical Dilemma: Aborting Babies With Handicaps The standard for such a condition is the elimination of the fetus and the doctor prescribed it as the only solution that would save the other of the twins.
• NASW Code of Ethics: Social Workers and Ethical Dilemmas As part of my action, I accessed her files and changed the date that she was to leave the facility by adding a month to it. However, I had acted professionally because it was in […]
• Ethical Dilemmas Overview and Analysis This student should be advised to report the matter to a teacher so that the owner of the iPod can be traced.
• Ethical Dilemmas in Mental Health Treatment Treatment of inmates with psychological problems is a delicate and sensitive process because such inmates are not in the normal state to reason.
• Empress Luxury Lines: Ethical Dilemma The dilemma infringes on Antonio’s principles and values because he thinks that the conduct of the company is not by the insurance company’s policies and principles and that, the management team should face the law.
• Ethical Dilemma With the Bank Teller On the other hand, the bank calls for honesty in service and client protection, and given that the teller took the money without permission from an inactive account belonging to a customer it is professionally […]
• The Ethical Dilemma by Pureco Corporation As the Pureco manager, I have the obligation of maximizing the stakeholders’ welfare, and considering that the company had already invested quite a huge sum of money in the establishment and marketing of the Newpen […]
• The Ethical Dilemma of Practicing Psychology of Acceptable Training At first blush, many people will probably agree that this additional element is the collection of moral principles and values of what is right and what is wrong and what is good and what is […]
• Ethical Dilemma Concepts on Example Phoebe’s Case In order to protect her rights, the council should not interfere with her applications on the basis of what Phoebe did. In addition to punishment, she should be made to repeat the assignment and submit […]
• Ethical Dilemmas: Morgan Brown Real Estate Company In the case of the latter ethical dilemma, it would be more effective and honest for this particular company to accept the fact that favouring one client over the other could lead to a tarnished […]
• Possible Solutions to the Ethical Dilemmas This varied, different group of the workforce is being required to work harmoniously jointly in the strength of teamwork and respect for the advantage of the company and the public they deal with.
• The Tobacco Marketing Ethical Dilemma The epidemiological evidence of the deadly tobacco effect in 1964 set the precedence for the mistrust between the tobacco production stakeholders and the public interest groups, that has led to long battle between the two […]
• Ethical Dilemma of Law Enforcement Code of Ethics Police officers are the example for citizens of the country which they serve, and they should correspond to the position which is occupied.
• Organ Donation: Ethical Dilemmas An example of an ethical dilemma surrounding the procedure is the case of rich man vs.poor man, or rather, the case of a person who can afford to buy an organ on the black market […]
• Aging and Cultural Diversity: Ethical Dilemmas Indeed, however absurd it may sound at first, this reading is right in pointing out that aging and cultural diversity do relate to each other and form a single concept relative to the formation of […]
• Ethical Dilemma in Teacher Career One was the departmental association vice president and the professor in the university; he was also the advisor of a student that had a hard relationship with one’s colleague the professor of physics.
• Ethical Dilemma: Solving a Situation, Decision Theory Under business ethics, this is a form of art which is said to examine the ethical principles or even the moral problems which might tend to occur as a result of running the business and […]
• The Acme Title Pawn Employee’s Ethical Dilemma While the situation is controversial, it can be stated that Joe should change the workplace and explain to his family the reasons for such a decision.
• Ethical Dilemmas in the Nursing Field As a human, I felt that the safety of the lady took precedence; hence I could not allow her to walk alone. As a nurse leader, I would encourage my staff to always put the […]
• Google Inc.’s Historical Ethical Dilemmas It is sad to say that various forms of unethical behavior are common in the workforce, and specific analysis is required to determine the impact of this phenomenon on the business industry.
• Performance-Enhancing Drugs Use as Ethical Dilemma According to Christian beliefs, Paul should refuse to partake in the team’s abuse of PEDs because it offers him and his teammates an unfair advantage over other athletes.
• Medical Ethical Dilemmas: Taking a Stand Morality is the idea of correctness and rightness that is constructed on people’s experiences and applied to the life of society.
• Joe Smith and Bill Bateman: Ethical Dilemma Analysis Indeed, their cooperation is attributed with the features of gray zone business conduct where the boundaries between the personal and the business issues are blurred.
• Ethical Advertising: Dilemmas and Resolutions One of the core aspects that should not be overlooked is that the number of competitors is going to increase significantly, and it is entirely possible that the company will suffer because of such policies.
• The Ethical Dilemma: Case of Chantu The ethical dilemma in the case of Chant is that her father wants her to leave school to manage the house and look after her three siblings.
• Ethical Dilemma on the Company Valuation Mistake I could inform my team and the company boards of the said mistake; I could inform the team but keep the company in the dark, or I could ignore the mistake altogether.
• Flight 93 Incident and Ethical Dilemma This paper evaluates the ethical standing of this question from a utilitarian point of view to establish the rightness or wrongness of the decision to shoot down the plane before it crashed.
• Police Corruption and Citizen’s Ethical Dilemma There are three key stakeholders in the given situation, which are the policemen, who set the terms; the father, who is to take the pivoting decision; and the family, who depends on the decision which […]
• Poverty in America: An Ethical Dilemma In contrast, a considerable percentage of the populations believe the society has the moral obligation to eradicate poverty, and thus, they hold the view that the solution to poverty reduction lies in the socioeconomic policies.
• Ethical Dilemma Involving a Social Worker As a social worker, I have to decide whether to support the community group, which is unanimously opposed to the decision of the housing authorities to rent to the local mental health department to establish […]
• Women’s Ethical Dilemma in the United States Army I had wanted to demonstrate to girls in schools across the country that it is possible for a woman to succeed in the American military. One of the greatest principles I have embraced in my […]
• Environmental Protection Agency’s Ethical Dilemma It is trying to find ways of meeting the demands of the new administration but in a way that will not compromise the need to protect the environment.
• Physician-Assisted Dying: Legal and Ethical Dilemma The case study relates to the right of a patient to die in various ways. To begin with, terminally ill people have the right to choose whether to live, or be allowed to pass on.
• Suicidal Ideation as Ethical Dilemma in Nursing According to the ethical guidelines that govern the profession of a nurse and other health care providers, their primary role is to protect life by enhancing the status of wellness of the patient.
• Ethical Dilemma & Glyphosate: Post Foods Company In this case, some experts believe that it is a vivid instance of the unethical business practices, as Post Foods’s consumers do not expect to find any pesticides in the products that are overtly advertised […]
• ProTech Company’s Ethical Dilemma According to the analysis of the data performed by Staci, the company seems to be having a high potential for growth over the next half-decade.
• Ethical Dilemma in Business Communication Today This paper explores this dilemma in terms of the extent to which a firm may abide by the ethical provisions against the backdrop of the heightening competition.
• Ethical Dilemma: Swimming Pool Building This is evident when the contractor conducts the private work of the mayor without any delay, as well as the birthday gift that the contractor advances to the mayor as a friend.
• Patient’s Secret Revelation: Ethical Dilemma She had to choose whether to hide the information, which she had received from a cancer patient and which was relevant to the treatment, from other nurses and doctors or to reveal it despite the […]
• Ethical Dilemmas in Prison’s Research The present paper aims to discuss the applicability of confidentiality and privacy provisions to prison research by addressing both the general rules regarding confidentiality of information in research and the specific considerations that apply to […]
• The Right to Die: Legal and Ethical Dilemma Consequently, the primary goal of the paper is to discover the freedoms of a patient, specifically, the right to die with the help of a controversial and confusing case of Mrs.
• Teacher’s Ethical Dilemma and Legal Responsibilities However, she is legally obligated not to leak exams to her students in any way because that would defeat the very purpose of the exams.
• A Compliance Officer Ethical Dilemma According to the compliance officer that was interviewed for this project, the SMAA program anticipated the high cost or unnecessary expenditures that are going to affect the reimbursement process if the physicians and other health […]
• Ethical Dilemmas in Professional Psychology In this case, it is essential that he explains to the client the legal consequences he will face should it be discovered that he is having a social relationship with her.
• HBOS Plc Company’s Ethical Dilemma The ethical dilemma in the case is that the top management of the company used complex nature of the financial statements and the weaknesses in the accounting standards to manipulate the financial records with an […]
• Employee’s Role in Ethical Dilemma Jan is aware of the possible layoffs at JLT that could affect Steve, and she knows the expenses that Steve, unaware of the resolution by the leadership, is about to make in building a house […]
• Ethical Dilemma: Political Involvement in Abortion The development of medicine brought the issue to the fore in the late 19th century. Therefore, it is but natural that it is the right of a woman to make the choice.
• Nuclear Waste Management Ethical Dilemmas However, the creation of energy through nuclear reactions leads to the production of radioactive by-products that are dangerous to the environment.
• KLM Company Responsibilities Ethical Dilemma To ensure that the expansion plan remained alive, the director suggested that a small team of employees should be a commission to start surveying the new market to identify the location where the firm would […]
• Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare Institutions The interviewee outlined the major strategies used to handle ethical dilemmas in the healthcare facility. The supervisor will be required to assess the impact of the ethical or legal dilemma.
• Medical Error Disclosure: Ethical Dilemma The topic in question was chosen due to the obvious conflict between the interests of the patient and the population, in general, which medical ethics supposedly protects, and the interests of the provider, who is […]
• Ethical Dilemmas in Rural Communities The fact that the rural area is different from the urban one has resulted in the creation of rural criminology. The ethical dilemmas that can arise in the process of working in rural areas for […]
• Ethical Dilemma in the Workplace Her partner is adamant, which means she should overlook the guidelines and influence the audit to reflect an outcome that will be good for both her career and the company.
• SuperCom Company Ethical Dilemma This section of the paper shows that the lack of informed consent, failure to report the ethical issue to authorities, and integrity issues are the possible ethical pitfalls in the case study.
• Livestrong and Apple Companies Ethical Dilemmas The USADA probe against Lance Armstrong was not in any way related to the work of the Foundation and its mission for cancer patients and their families.
• Journalism Ethical Dilemma: Moral Discourse This situation resulted in an ethical dilemma for the journalist who has to decide whether to publish the article about the accident and potentially dangerous products or to take the money and remain silent.
• “Erin Brockovich” Movie Ethical Dilemma The response of the company when it became apparent that the chromium was causing cancer was to hide the evidence regarding their operations and its connection to the increased rates of cancer.
• Normandy Crossing School Ethical Dilemma
• Engineers and Ethical Dilemmas
• Solving Ethical Dilemmas in Public Relations
• Government and Organisational Regulation: Ethical Dilemmas
• Topics in Ethical Dilemma: When the Choice Becomes too Complicated
• International Satellite Images Ethical Dilemma
• Reporting Inflated Numbers: Ethical Dilemma
• Ethical Dilemmas in The Case of Wilma
• Ethical Dilemma: Participation in Volunteer Activities
• Public Scrutiny and Accountability: An Ethical Dilemma
• Huntington’s Disease and Ethics
• Ethical and Integrity Dilemma Within Employees in the Global Economy
• Discussing an Ethical Dilemma
• Ethical and Moral Dilemma: McDonald’s
• End of life: the medical ethical dilemma
• Ethics in Professional Psychology: Abortion Issue
• Role of Codes of Conduct in Child Labour Practice
• Ethical Dilemma in Medical Practice
• Ethical Dilemma of Psychologist
• Solving the Ethical Dilemmas
• Workplace Health & Safety: The Ethical Dilemmas
• Ethical Dilemma at the CornCo Company
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business
• Ethical Dilemma- The Fate of Opel
• Ethical Dilemma: “A weak Dollar Versus A strong Yuan”
• Ethical Dilemma: Heroin Prescription
• Ethical Dilemma: the Husband’s Right to Confidential Treatment
• Globalization and Its Impact on the Health Care System: Ethical Dilemmas of Medical Treatment
• Ethical Dilemma in Healthcare Administration
• Ethical Dilemma in Accepting or Rejecting of Offers
• The Ethical Dilemma – How to Make the Right Decision
• What Are the Examples of Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Are Some Examples of Ethical Dilemmas in the Workplace?
• What Are the Oil Industry and Climate Change Strategies and Ethical Dilemmas?
• Which Scenarios Are the Examples of True Ethics Dilemmas?
• What Are the Most Difficult Ethical Dilemmas People Can Face?
• How Do You Identify Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Are the Examples of Ethical Dilemmas in School?
• What Are Some Examples of Ethical Dilemmas in Healthcare?
• What Are the Seven Major Ethical Dilemmas in Nursing Practice?
• What Are Some Common Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Is the Difference between Ethical Issues and Ethical Dilemmas?
• How Does a Person Resolve Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Are the Ethical Dilemmas in Telephone Nursing?
• What Are the Four Core Ethical Dilemmas Social Work Is Concerned With?
• What Is Another Term for Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Are Nurses’ Contributions to the Resolution of Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Are the Four Steps for Solving Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Are the Ethical Dilemmas of War?
• What Are the Ethical Dilemmas in the Military?
• What Are Ethical Dilemmas in a Community?
• What Are the Ethical Dilemmas in Various Stages of Organizational Development?
• What Are Some Ethical Dilemmas for Students?
• What are the Ethical Dilemmas and Dominant Moral Strategies in Games?
• What Are the Ethical Dilemmas in a Classroom?
• What Are Ethical Dilemmas in University?
• Is the Marketization of Education the Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Is the Anatomy of the Ethical Dilemmas?
• What Ethical Dilemmas Arose Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic?
• What Are the Ethical Dilemmas in a Cross-Cultural Context?
• What Is the Frequency of Ethical Dilemmas in a Medical Inpatient Service?
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Social Justice Essay Ideas
• Ethics Ideas
• Social Norms Essay Ideas
• Social Responsibility Topics
• Capital Punishment Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Euthanasia Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 28). 221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethical-dilemma-essay-examples/

"221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 28 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethical-dilemma-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples'. 28 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethical-dilemma-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethical-dilemma-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "221 Ethical Dilemma Essay Topics & Examples." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/ethical-dilemma-essay-examples/.

Danney Ursery

Emeritus professor, philosophy, st. edward's university.

Moral Reasoning Guidelines

*This material can also be found in the Moral Reasoning booklet.

Making good moral decisions is difficult, and part of the difficulty is that we do not live in a vacuum.  As we discussed in Section I, such decisions are complex and are connected to different contexts.  You are being asked to do an ethical analysis as compared to a political, religious, or economic one.  Depending upon the course you are enrolled in, your research topic or case study focuses on a moral dilemma or controversial moral issue and probably has several possible solutions to your dilemma.   For your second essay, it is not so important which moral judgment or moral rule you select (Discovery essay); instead, it is important that you justify, defend, and argue well for your moral position (Justification essay) and that you demonstrate clear and consistent reasoning, as well as critical thinking skills.  In making good moral judgments, you must argue for your position (the Discovery essay) using a normative ethical theory (the Justification essay).  The key to recognizing an ethical issue is to be able to conceptualize the moral problem correctly in the first place.  This is what our Moral Reasoning Strategy attempts to help you do:  It is a template that organizes your thoughts in order to generate a decision and then argue for or justify your decision using a normative ethical theory.

Prelude.    A good moral reasoner pays close attention to certain rules of thought and has good critical thinking skills.  Critical thinking involves certain intellectual traits which people must have in order to think clearly and accurately and thus to make solid moral decisions.  While this booklet cannot cover these rules or traits in any detail, let it suffice to say that these traits involve characteristics such as clarity, relevance, consistency, depth, logic, and preciseness.

Paper A.  The Moral Dilemma Essay: a statement of the issue.

In this section you are asked to objectively lay out for your reader a moral dilemma you have encountered in your place of employment, in your personal life, or through your scholarly research.  While there may be overlap, a moral dilemma is not the same as, for example, an economic dilemma, plus not all moral issues are not moral dilemmas.   If you are not clear what a moral dilemma is, please contact your instructor.

After thinking closely about your moral dilemma, your first task is to write a summary of the dilemma, conflict, or case study.  Doing so requires simply stating the facts of the case; you are not drawing any conclusions in this section.  Your summary should be no more than approximately one to two page and should end with a clearly stated moral dilemma in the form of a question .  Be sure you have a moral dilemma rather than simply a social issue or a personal grip.  A moral dilemma is not always the same as a moral issue:  Something may be a moral issue for society but not a moral dilemma or issue for you, or vice versa.  A moral dilemma involves a values conflict. This distinction is especially important in the capstone course.  Your summary is simply an accurate description of the situation at hand.  You must have the summary of your moral dilemma (or capstone topic) approved by the instructor before you can submit your Discovery essay.

Paper B.  The Discovery Essay: A Moral Analysis.

Your Discovery essay should begin with a very short restatement of the dilemma.  The question often arises as to how one can best morally resolve the dilemma or conflict in question.  In the Discovery Essay, as well as your capstone course, Moral Issues in Society, when you are analyzing your moral dilemma, you should notice that your dilemma involves more than your own viewpoint; we cannot be moral isolationists.  We must, therefore, find a method of analysis that is acceptable to people of diverse moral positions.  Author Vincent Ruggiero proposes three common concerns which many people can agree upon as relevant to various positions:  Obligations, Values, and Effects.

1. Significant human action occurs directly or indirectly, in a context of relationships with others.  Relationships involve obligations; what should or should not be done.  When analyzing a values conflict, one must define what the obligations to the stakeholders in the dilemma/decision are (Ruggiero 90).  What are some of the obligations involved in your dilemma?  These can be obligations to the stakeholders involved or to you, and could be items such as family, economics, personal satisfaction, etc.  Every significant human action, whether personal or professional, arises in the context of relationships with other sentient beings.  These relationships can be discussed in terms of specific duties and rights or in terms of our obligations to respect the rights of people and animals.  Obligations bind us.  When we are morally obligated, we must do certain things or avoid doing other things.  It is important for our moral decision making to understand what our obligations are.  We must always ask ourselves, “What are the obligations that derive from our relationships or are affected by our conduct?”

2. According to Ruggiero, values are specific concepts that assist us in applying, for example, the principle of respect for persons in our moral judgments (101).  Examples of values include the following: fairness, tolerance, compassion, loyalty, forgiveness, amity, and peace.  What is the impact of our actions and obligations on our important values ?  Are these values moral or nonmoral?  A value is a general belief or an attitude about something we desire or like, whereas an ideal is a morally important goal, virtue, or notion of excellence worth striving for.  Clearly, different cultures impart different values and ideals and, equally important, different ways of pursuing them, but what is important for our decision-making is to have a grasp of what values are involved in our situation or dilemma.  For example, in our culture we allegedly respect the value of tolerance or compassion.  In a like manner, our institutions often express an allegiance to the value of efficiency, productivity, and so forth.

Values often conflict with each other, but at least if we have some understanding of the values involved, we are better able to attempt a resolution of the conflict.  We must always ask ourselves what values are at stake or what value a particular action respects or promotes, neglects, or thwarts.  This section will be an important part of your essay, so be sure to give sufficient thought to assessing what values are involved in your dilemma.

In you have discovered all the values involved in the moral dilemma, rank your values in order of importance to you.  What is the reasoning behind your ranking?  Closely review Section II, Exploring Values, Rules, and Principles .  Delineating the moral values, ranking them, and explaining them are an important section of your paper and must be included in it .  We must know what we value before we can begin to make an informed moral decision.  Your highest-ranking value should be the one that helps define your moral rule or grounds your moral judgment.

3. Any action will normally have an effect or outcome.  When analyzing a values conflict or moral dilemma, one should, as far as possible, be aware of the beneficial or harmful effects that result from the action and how it affects the people involved, including of course, the person performing the action.  Are the effects emotional?  Physical? Immediate?  Delayed?  Obvious?  Subtle?  Hidden?  Intentional? (Ruggiero 112).  What are the effects of our actions on our obligations or values?  A morally aware person must take into account the effects of our obligations, both on others and on what values we hold.  We must always ask ourselves the following: What are the effects of alternative courses of action?  Who is affected by the action and how?  How do these effects compare with those of the alternatives open to us?

What should have priority?  Obligations?  Values?  Effects?

Ruggiero’s method identifies three concerns common to almost all ethical systems: obligations, values, and effects.  Employing these concerns would be a useful starting point when attempting a resolve a moral dilemma since an action which does not pass scrutiny after the obligations, values, and effects are analyzed will be morally suspect.  Stated in a positive way, any action that honors obligations while respecting values and benefiting people can be presumed to be moral.

One should not assume, however, that each concern will be represented equally in each and every moral decision.  Sometimes the issue may be largely a matter of obligations; other times, some value may predominate; still other times, consideration of effects may be the overriding concern.  These are just guidelines, but a moral individual without some form of moral decision-making procedure is like a sailor without a compass; sooner or later he or she will get lost.

Proposals for resolution of a dilemma or conflict.

Now that you have considered the obligations, values, and effects, what proposals or solutions can be possible resolutions to your moral dilemma?  That is to say, what are the possible ways to solve it?  You also need to eliminate the unethical options, since these options reduce moral judgments to immoral or nonmoral judgments.  As you are brainstorming, pay attention to the following:

a. Be aware of your thinking process and don’t always go with your first impressions or the          obvious. Think outside the box.

b. Be flexible.  Try not to make up your mind before thinking has occurred.  Rationalizations are different than reasons; in ethics you deal with reasons.

c. Think critically and creatively.  Simply holding an opinion or having a view does not indicate    critically and creative thinking.  Look outside the box.

d. Do your proposals specifically tell you what you ought to do?  Do they give you a variety of    options?

Reflective Assessment.

a. Choose your best proposal from the list you just made and then clearly and precisely state your solution to, or judgment of, the dilemma which you raised in Section A.  That is to say, what is your moral judgment concerning the resolution of your moral dilemma?  You need to clearly and specifically state what your judgment or proposed course of action is.

b. What assumptions are you making with your proposal?

c. What are the implications, both positive and negative, involved in the acceptance of your specific judgment or solution?  That is to say, what do you think will happen, morally speaking, if you adopt your proposal?  Why do you think it will happen?

d. Conclude with a clear statement of the moral rule and moral judgment involved.

The moral rule is normally only one sentence and is usually action guiding; it must be specific.  Your moral rule is also that which grounds your solution or moral judgment.  For example, if your moral judgment is “X should have told the truth to Y,” your moral rule could be that “X should not lie.”  It is important that you are clear on this.

e. Is your resolution or moral judgment directly defendable by your moral rule?

f. Is your moral dilemma (your initial question) directed by and clearly answered by your moral judgment?  State your moral judgment clearly and precisely, being sure to avoid biasing the reader toward your viewpoint.

Final Review.

– Your Assumptions

Describe what you know and don’t know about your dilemma.

(What assumptions do you have to make?)

–Your Values

a) List and describe the important values in your life.

b) Which are being called on in this situation?

c) Are any of them in conflict with each other in the current situation?

d) How would you rank order them?

e) Why do you rank them in this way?

–Your Obligations

a) Describe what your obligations are in your current dilemma.

b) How would you rank order them?

c) Why do you rank them in this way?

–Proposing Possible Solutions

a) Explore several possible ways (three to five) to solve your dilemma.

b) For each, explain which obligations and values are expressed.

–Choosing Your Solution

a) Name the proposal you are most likely to choose.

b) Is this proposal expressive of your highest values and obligations?

c) Why did you not pick any of the others?

–Effects

a) What are the resulting positive effects/consequences/outcomes?

b) What are the negative effects/consequences/outcomes?

c) Do the positives of your proposal outweigh the negatives? How so?

–Moral Judgment and Rule

a) Clearly state your moral judgment

b) Check to make sure your judgment is a direct response to your dilemma question

c) Clearly state your moral rule which supports your judgment

Discovery Essay Worksheet.

When you submit your Discovery essay, attach to the very end of your essay a sheet of paper with your responses to the following four items.  Your responses should be based on, and found within, the Discovery essay.  There should be nothing discussed on the worksheet which is not discussed at length in your Discovery essay.  The worksheet with my comments on it will need to be submitted with the Justification essay, as well.

a. In one sentence, state your moral dilemma in the form of a question proposed at the end of the             first essay and the same dilemma you analyzed in the Discovery Essay.

b. List, and rank in order of importance, all the values that you discussed and analyzed in your     Discovery Essay.

c. In one sentence, state your moral judgment.  Your judgment should be a direct response to       your dilemma.

d. In one sentence, state the moral rule upon which supports your moral judgment.

Paper C.  The Justification Essay: An Ethical Analysis

In this section, you are asked to defend, argue for, and justify your moral judgment or your research conclusion using one of the normative ethical theories we have covered this semester.  If you are unclear about the differences between ethical theories, principles, and moral rules, please ask your professor, since confusing these terms could result in conceptual difficulties.  You are asked to give reasons that are grounded in a normative ethical theory for your moral judgment or moral rule.  In your Discovery Essay, you made a moral judgment and then carefully considered what the moral rule is that defends and justifies your judgment. In this Justification Essay, you must apply a normative ethical theory to your judgment. The justification essay investigates which ethical principles justify the moral judgment that guided your proposal in the discovery essay.

1.  In no more than ten sentences, the first paragraph of your Justification Essay should sum up the moral dilemma or conflict you discovered in the Discovery Essay, as well as clearly restate your moral rule and moral judgment from your Discovery Essay.  You will be justifying, defending, and arguing for your particular moral judgment or rule, so you must be very clear in this review of the critical content of your Discovery Essay.

2.  Choose the normative ethical theory (e.g., Utilitarianism, Kantian, etc.) that best defends your moral judgment and then clearly and precisely argue for the validity of your judgment using your selected ethical theory.  This is by far the most important part of this assignment and should make up at least 75% of your paper.

Normative ethical theories use several principles to help argue for or justify moral rules and judgments.  When writing your Justification essay, be sure to utilize the ethical theory not just an ethical principle or two. When writing your capstone paper, you must defend your conclusion or final proposal using a normative ethical theory.  Remember, you are not just listing principles and simply claiming that they defend your moral rule; you must use the ethical theory (the entire relevant reading and lectures) to argue for your position.   Again, you are using a normative ethical theory to defend or justify your moral judgment or moral rule; you are not using your personal viewpoint, your religious affiliation, or the law.  This section is the most important part of your Justification essay.

3.  What ethical and/or philosophical objections can be raised about your position and the ethical defense of your moral judgment?  Be specific.  How would you respond to these objections?  Have you violated any of the obligations, values, or effects you discovered in your Discovery Essay?

4.  Finally, give a five or six sentence summary of your position.

• Essay Guides
• Other Essays
• How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples
• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

How to Write an Ethics Paper: Guide & Ethical Essay Examples

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

An ethics essay is a type of academic writing that explores ethical issues and dilemmas. Students should evaluates them in terms of moral principles and values. The purpose of an ethics essay is to examine the moral implications of a particular issue, and provide a reasoned argument in support of an ethical perspective.

Writing an essay about ethics is a tough task for most students. The process involves creating an outline to guide your arguments about a topic and planning your ideas to convince the reader of your feelings about a difficult issue. If you still need assistance putting together your thoughts in composing a good paper, you have come to the right place. We have provided a series of steps and tips to show how you can achieve success in writing. This guide will tell you how to write an ethics paper using ethical essay examples to understand every step it takes to be proficient. In case you don’t have time for writing, get in touch with our professional essay writers for hire . Our experts work hard to supply students with excellent essays.

What Is an Ethics Essay?

An ethics essay uses moral theories to build arguments on an issue. You describe a controversial problem and examine it to determine how it affects individuals or society. Ethics papers analyze arguments on both sides of a possible dilemma, focusing on right and wrong. The analysis gained can be used to solve real-life cases. Before embarking on writing an ethical essay, keep in mind that most individuals follow moral principles. From a social context perspective, these rules define how a human behaves or acts towards another. Therefore, your theme essay on ethics needs to demonstrate how a person feels about these moral principles. More specifically, your task is to show how significant that issue is and discuss if you value or discredit it.

Purpose of an Essay on Ethics

The primary purpose of an ethics essay is to initiate an argument on a moral issue using reasoning and critical evidence. Instead of providing general information about a problem, you present solid arguments about how you view the moral concern and how it affects you or society. When writing an ethical paper, you demonstrate philosophical competence, using appropriate moral perspectives and principles.

Things to Write an Essay About Ethics On

Before you start to write ethics essays, consider a topic you can easily address. In most cases, an ethical issues essay analyzes right and wrong. This includes discussing ethics and morals and how they contribute to the right behaviors. You can also talk about work ethic, code of conduct, and how employees promote or disregard the need for change. However, you can explore other areas by asking yourself what ethics mean to you. Think about how a recent game you watched with friends started a controversial argument. Or maybe a newspaper that highlighted a story you felt was misunderstood or blown out of proportion. This way, you can come up with an excellent topic that resonates with your personal ethics and beliefs.

Ethics Paper Outline

Sometimes, you will be asked to submit an outline before writing an ethics paper. Creating an outline for an ethics paper is an essential step in creating a good essay. You can use it to arrange your points and supporting evidence before writing. It also helps organize your thoughts, enabling you to fill any gaps in your ideas. The outline for an essay should contain short and numbered sentences to cover the format and outline. Each section is structured to enable you to plan your work and include all sources in writing an ethics paper. An ethics essay outline is as follows:

• Background information
• Thesis statement
• Restate thesis statement
• Summarize key points
• Final thoughts on the topic

Using this outline will improve clarity and focus throughout your writing process.

Ethical Essay Structure

Ethics essays are similar to other essays based on their format, outline, and structure. An ethical essay should have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion section as its structure. When planning your ideas, make sure that the introduction and conclusion are around 20 percent of the paper, leaving the rest to the body. We will take a detailed look at what each part entails and give examples that are going to help you understand them better.  Refer to our essay structure examples to find a fitting way of organizing your writing.

Ethics Paper Introduction

An ethics essay introduction gives a synopsis of your main argument. One step on how to write an introduction for an ethics paper is telling about the topic and describing its background information. This paragraph should be brief and straight to the point. It informs readers what your position is on that issue. Start with an essay hook to generate interest from your audience. It can be a question you will address or a misunderstanding that leads up to your main argument. You can also add more perspectives to be discussed; this will inform readers on what to expect in the paper.

Ethics Essay Introduction Example

You can find many ethics essay introduction examples on the internet. In this guide, we have written an excellent extract to demonstrate how it should be structured. As you read, examine how it begins with a hook and then provides background information on an issue. 

Imagine living in a world where people only lie, and honesty is becoming a scarce commodity. Indeed, modern society is facing this reality as truth and deception can no longer be separated. Technology has facilitated a quick transmission of voluminous information, whereas it's hard separating facts from opinions.

In this example, the first sentence of the introduction makes a claim or uses a question to hook the reader.

Ethics Essay Thesis Statement

An ethics paper must contain a thesis statement in the first paragraph. Learning how to write a thesis statement for an ethics paper is necessary as readers often look at it to gauge whether the essay is worth their time.

When you deviate away from the thesis, your whole paper loses meaning. In ethics essays, your thesis statement is a roadmap in writing, stressing your position on the problem and giving reasons for taking that stance. It should focus on a specific element of the issue being discussed. When writing a thesis statement, ensure that you can easily make arguments for or against its stance.

Ethical Paper Thesis Example

Look at this example of an ethics paper thesis statement and examine how well it has been written to state a position and provide reasons for doing so:

The moral implications of dishonesty are far-reaching as they undermine trust, integrity, and other foundations of society, damaging personal and professional relationships. 

The above thesis statement example is clear and concise, indicating that this paper will highlight the effects of dishonesty in society. Moreover, it focuses on aspects of personal and professional relationships.

Ethics Essay Body

The body section is the heart of an ethics paper as it presents the author's main points. In an ethical essay, each body paragraph has several elements that should explain your main idea. These include:

• A topic sentence that is precise and reiterates your stance on the issue.
• Evidence supporting it.
• Examples that illustrate your argument.
• A thorough analysis showing how the evidence and examples relate to that issue.
• A transition sentence that connects one paragraph to another with the help of essay transitions .

When you write an ethics essay, adding relevant examples strengthens your main point and makes it easy for others to understand and comprehend your argument. 

Body Paragraph for Ethics Paper Example

A good body paragraph must have a well-defined topic sentence that makes a claim and includes evidence and examples to support it. Look at part of an example of ethics essay body paragraph below and see how its idea has been developed:

Honesty is an essential component of professional integrity. In many fields, trust and credibility are crucial for professionals to build relationships and success. For example, a doctor who is dishonest about a potential side effect of a medication is not only acting unethically but also putting the health and well-being of their patients at risk. Similarly, a dishonest businessman could achieve short-term benefits but will lose their client’s trust.

Ethics Essay Conclusion

A concluding paragraph shares the summary and overview of the author's main arguments. Many students need clarification on what should be included in the essay conclusion and how best to get a reader's attention. When writing an ethics paper conclusion, consider the following:

• Restate the thesis statement to emphasize your position.
• Summarize its main points and evidence.
• Final thoughts on the issue and any other considerations.

You can also reflect on the topic or acknowledge any possible challenges or questions that have not been answered. A closing statement should present a call to action on the problem based on your position.

Sample Ethics Paper Conclusion

The conclusion paragraph restates the thesis statement and summarizes the arguments presented in that paper. The sample conclusion for an ethical essay example below demonstrates how you should write a concluding statement.  

In conclusion, the implications of dishonesty and the importance of honesty in our lives cannot be overstated. Honesty builds solid relationships, effective communication, and better decision-making. This essay has explored how dishonesty impacts people and that we should value honesty. We hope this essay will help readers assess their behavior and work towards being more honest in their lives.

In the above extract, the writer gives final thoughts on the topic, urging readers to adopt honest behavior.

How to Write an Ethics Paper?

As you learn how to write an ethics essay, it is not advised to immediately choose a topic and begin writing. When you follow this method, you will get stuck or fail to present concrete ideas. A good writer understands the importance of planning. As a fact, you should organize your work and ensure it captures key elements that shed more light on your arguments. Hence, following the essay structure and creating an outline to guide your writing process is the best approach. In the following segment, we have highlighted step-by-step techniques on how to write a good ethics paper.

1. Pick a Topic

Before writing ethical papers, brainstorm to find ideal topics that can be easily debated. For starters, make a list, then select a title that presents a moral issue that may be explained and addressed from opposing sides. Make sure you choose one that interests you. Here are a few ideas to help you search for topics:

• Review current trends affecting people.
• Think about your personal experiences.
• Study different moral theories and principles.
• Examine classical moral dilemmas.

Once you find a suitable topic and are ready, start to write your ethics essay, conduct preliminary research, and ascertain that there are enough sources to support it.

2. Conduct In-Depth Research

Once you choose a topic for your essay, the next step is gathering sufficient information about it. Conducting in-depth research entails looking through scholarly journals to find credible material. Ensure you note down all sources you found helpful to assist you on how to write your ethics paper. Use the following steps to help you conduct your research:

• Clearly state and define a problem you want to discuss.
• This will guide your research process.
• Develop keywords that match the topic.
• Begin searching from a wide perspective. This will allow you to collect more information, then narrow it down by using the identified words above.

3. Develop an Ethics Essay Outline

An outline will ease up your writing process when developing an ethic essay. As you develop a paper on ethics, jot down factual ideas that will build your paragraphs for each section. Include the following steps in your process:

• Review the topic and information gathered to write a thesis statement.
• Identify the main arguments you want to discuss and include their evidence.
• Group them into sections, each presenting a new idea that supports the thesis.
• Write an outline.
• Review and refine it.

Examples can also be included to support your main arguments. The structure should be sequential, coherent, and with a good flow from beginning to end. When you follow all steps, you can create an engaging and organized outline that will help you write a good essay.

4. Write an Ethics Essay

Once you have selected a topic, conducted research, and outlined your main points, you can begin writing an essay . Ensure you adhere to the ethics paper format you have chosen. Start an ethics paper with an overview of your topic to capture the readers' attention. Build upon your paper by avoiding ambiguous arguments and using the outline to help you write your essay on ethics. Finish the introduction paragraph with a thesis statement that explains your main position.  Expand on your thesis statement in all essay paragraphs. Each paragraph should start with a topic sentence and provide evidence plus an example to solidify your argument, strengthen the main point, and let readers see the reasoning behind your stance. Finally, conclude the essay by restating your thesis statement and summarizing all key ideas. Your conclusion should engage the reader, posing questions or urging them to reflect on the issue and how it will impact them.

5. Proofread Your Ethics Essay

Proofreading your essay is the last step as you countercheck any grammatical or structural errors in your essay. When writing your ethic paper, typical mistakes you could encounter include the following:

• Spelling errors: e.g., there, they’re, their.
• Homophone words: such as new vs. knew.
• Inconsistencies: like mixing British and American words, e.g., color vs. color.
• Formatting issues: e.g., double spacing, different font types.

While proofreading your ethical issue essay, read it aloud to detect lexical errors or ambiguous phrases that distort its meaning. Verify your information and ensure it is relevant and up-to-date. You can ask your fellow student to read the essay and give feedback on its structure and quality.

Ethics Essay Examples

Writing an essay is challenging without the right steps. There are so many ethics paper examples on the internet, however, we have provided a list of free ethics essay examples below that are well-structured and have a solid argument to help you write your paper. Click on them and see how each writing step has been integrated. Ethics essay example 1

Ethics essay example 2

Ethics essay example 3

Ethics essay example 4

College ethics essay example 5

Ethics Essay Writing Tips

When writing papers on ethics, here are several tips to help you complete an excellent essay:

• Choose a narrow topic and avoid broad subjects, as it is easy to cover the topic in detail.
• Ensure you have background information. A good understanding of a topic can make it easy to apply all necessary moral theories and principles in writing your paper.
• State your position clearly. It is important to be sure about your stance as it will allow you to draft your arguments accordingly.
• When writing ethics essays, be mindful of your audience. Provide arguments that they can understand.
• Integrate solid examples into your essay. Morality can be hard to understand; therefore, using them will help a reader grasp these concepts.

Bottom Line on Writing an Ethics Paper

Creating this essay is a common exercise in academics that allows students to build critical skills. When you begin writing, state your stance on an issue and provide arguments to support your position. This guide gives information on how to write an ethics essay as well as examples of ethics papers. Remember to follow these points in your writing:

• Create an outline highlighting your main points.
• Write an effective introduction and provide background information on an issue.
• Include a thesis statement.
• Develop concrete arguments and their counterarguments, and use examples.
• Sum up all your key points in your conclusion and restate your thesis statement.

Contact our academic writing platform and have your challenge solved. Here, you can order essays and papers on any topic and enjoy top quality. 

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

You may also like

Why Morality Matters: An Introduction to Ethics by Scott B. Rae

• jeremy-bouma
• November 8, 2018
• Share Twitter Facebook

"Why be moral" is one question at the heart of Scott Rae’s bestselling introduction to ethics, Moral Choices , now in its Fourth Edition . Rae writes in the book's introduction:

Since the moral life and moral decision-making are the focal points of this book, you can see that I am assuming being moral matters, and significantly. If you decide that being moral is not very important, then you probably will not spend much time reading this or any other book on ethics. But if being moral is important to you, the content of this book will be helpful in shaping how you view morality. (11)

With its unique union of theory and application and its well-organized, easy-to-use design, Moral Choices has earned its place as the standard text for college ethics courses. This fourth edition offers extensive updates, revisions, and three brand new chapters all designed to help students develop a sound and current basis for making ethical decisions in today’s complex postmodern culture.

If you're an instructor of ethics, we invite you to request an exam copy of the new edition. C ontinue reading Rae's introduction to the book below and you'll discover how Rae's approach in Moral Choices can support your own teaching and strengthen the impact you make on your students' moral decision-making.

Imagine that you were able to live your life in such a way that you could do whatever you wanted to do, whenever you wanted to do it, and you would never get caught or face any consequences for your actions? That is, you could cheat on exams in school, plagiarize papers, sleep with whoever you wanted to, or embezzle money from your employer, and never worry about getting caught. In Plato’s classic work The Republic , the myth of Gyges sets out precisely this situation. In a parallel to Frodo putting on the ring in the film trilogy, The Lord of the Rings ,[1] Gyges was given the opportunity to live as an invisible entity, able to do anything he wanted without anyone discovering what he had done. That is, he could do whatever he wanted and would assuredly get away with it. Given the chance to live life like this, the question Plato raises is “Would a person want to be moral? And if so, why?”[2] After a good deal of dialogue, Plato concluded that being moral was inherently valuable, apart from any additional benefits it produced or harm that it enabled a person to avoid.

How would you respond to the question “Why be moral?” Since the moral life and moral decision-making are the focal points of this book, you can see that I am assuming being moral matters, and significantly. If you decide that being moral is not very important, then you probably will not spend much time reading this or any other book on ethics. But if being moral is important to you, the content of this book will be helpful in shaping how you view morality.

Morality and the Good Life/Society

Morality matters because most people, when they are genuinely honest with themselves, associate doing well in life with being a good person. Having moral character is still essential to most people’s conceptions of what makes a person flourish in his or her life. For example, it is difficult to imagine a person being considered a success in life if he has gained his wealth dishonestly. It is equally difficult to call a person a success who is at the top of his profession but cheats on his wife, abuses his children, and drinks too much. On the other hand, we rightly hold up a person like Mother Teresa as a model of living a good life, even though she lacked most material goods that society values. One of the principal reasons for being moral is that it is central to most concepts of human fulfillment. For the Christian, being moral is critical to a life that seeks to honor God. We could say that being moral is inherently good because it is foundational to a person’s flourishing in life, since doing well in life and being a good person still go together for most people.

The same holds true for society as a whole. Most people would not want to live in a society in which morality was unimportant, in which conceptions of right and wrong carried little weight. In fact, it is unlikely that any sort of civilized society could continue unless it had concern for key moral values, such as fairness, justice, truthfulness, and compassion. Ethics are important because they give direction to people and societies who have some sense that they cannot flourish without being moral. This is sometimes referred to as social contract theory , which maintains that as a society, people generally agree to abide by certain moral rules and standards for the sake of social order and peace.[3] Thomas Hobbes, for example, insists that something like this social contract is necessary if societies are to avoid his “state of nature,” which he describes as a war of all against all. This type of society Hobbes wanted to avoid is exemplified in William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies in which a social order without morality degenerates into a world that very few people would want to live.

Many thoughtful observers of today’s culture are growing increasingly concerned about a breakdown in morality, particularly among students and young adults. They cite phenomena such as drug use, alcoholism, teenage pregnancies, violence, juvenile delinquency, crime, and sexually transmitted diseases as evidence of the moral fabric of society coming unraveled. Some even suggest that the 2016 US Presidential election is further evidence of character and morality being marginalized. University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter pointedly maintains, “Character is dead. Attempts to revive it will yield little. Its time has passed.”[4] He argues that, culturally, we want a renewal of morality, but we want it without the commitments that accompany a rekindling of the importance of character and ethics. He puts it this way:

We want a renewal of character in our day, but we don’t really know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates and compels. This price is too high for us to pay (as a culture). We want character, but without unyielding conviction; we want strong morality, but without the emotional burden of guilt and shame; we want virtue, but without particular moral justifications that invariably offend; we want good without having to name evil; we want decency without the authority to insist on it; we want moral community without any limitations to personal freedom. In short, we want what we cannot possibly have on the terms we want it.[5]

What Hunter means by a “creedal order” is a framework for morality that has substantial authority and is binding on individuals and communities. It is not necessarily a religious framework, but Hunter is not optimistic about a renewal of character apart from some kind of religious reinforcement of moral commitments.

Morality and One’s Worldview

Morality matters because moral questions are at the core of life’s most vital issues. Morality is primarily concerned with questions of right and wrong, the ability to distinguish between the two, and the justification of the distinction. Closely related are such questions as: What is a good person? What things are morally praiseworthy? What constitutes a good life? And what would a good society look like? These are fundamental to your view of the world. You cannot formulate an adequate worldview without providing answers to these moral questions.[6] Your view of morality is connected to other critical questions that your worldview must answer. Everyone has a worldview, that is, a set of intellectual lenses through which a person sees the world. Of course, not everyone’s worldview is well thought out or entirely consistent; nonetheless, everyone has one. In fact, when someone makes a decision for Christian faith, he or she not only begins a relationship with God but also adopts a new set of lenses through which to see the world. The same is basically true of adopting other faiths or no faith—that commitment comes with a worldview, a set of ideas to which you are also committed. You cannot have an adequate worldview without a view of morality.

A person’s worldview consists of the way a person answers questions about metaphysics , which ask what is real, or what is the nature of reality? Metaphysics means “beyond the physical,” and it deals with questions of what exists—is it just the physical world (known as naturalism), or are there real things that exist outside the physical world? Your worldview also involves a viewpoint about epistemology (which comes from two Greek words meaning “the study of knowledge”), which asks how we know what we know. It also involves a view about anthropology (which also comes from two Greek words which mean “the study of man [humanity]”), which asks what a person is (and, by extension, what happens to a person after death). Anthropology addresses the issues of human personhood: Is a person simply a collection of body parts and physical properties, or does a person consist of something else, something immaterial, like a soul? Your answers to the questions about morality mentioned above connect to other aspects of your worldview, hopefully consistently!

For example, your view of metaphysics makes a substantial difference in how you view morality. If God exists, then your view of morality, to be consistent, should take that into account. You might also conclude that God has ordered his world so that morality is built into its framework. If your worldview has no place for God, you might conclude that morality is strictly a human creation. Or you might conclude that morality arose as a result of an evolutionary adaptive advantage, that human beings saw the advantage for survival in having communities that are governed by moral obligations.

Likewise, your anthropology is closely connected to your view of metaphysics. If you are a naturalist, human beings are nothing more than a collection of parts and properties with no essence that continues through time and change. How you view the morality of many bioethical issues depends on your view of human persons—what are persons, and when does human personhood begin and end?[7] A person’s position on abortion, physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia, reproductive technologies, and enhancement biotechnology all depend on your view of human persons, which is often assumed and not made explicit.

Your view of epistemology is also very important for understanding how you come to know your moral obligations. If you are an epistemological skeptic, you might hold that even if morality does exist, human beings cannot know its demands. But if you are more of an epistemological realist, you might conclude that morality can be known and what we can know does correspond to what actually exists. How, specifically, it can be known helps to distinguish a divine command view of morality from a natural law view.

Epistemology from a Christian worldview presumes that there is such a thing as genuine moral knowledge. But the existence of genuine moral knowledge is being increasingly called into question in philosophy today as a result of the cultural dominance of naturalism . This demonstrates how a person’s view of epistemology is connected to his or her view of metaphysics. Among other things, the naturalist metaphysic maintains that all reality is reducible to that which can be perceived with one’s senses. The implication for epistemology is that there is nothing that is real or that counts for knowledge that is not verifiable by the senses. As a result, moral knowledge has been reduced to the realm of belief and is considered parallel to religious beliefs, which the culture widely holds are not verifiable. The theist maintains that moral knowledge is genuine knowledge just like scientific knowledge—that “murder is wrong” can be known as true and cannot be reduced to subjective opinion or belief without the risk of all morality being subjective. The theist argues that no one consistently lives as if morality is entirely subjective and that moral truths do exist and can be known.[8]

Morality and Diversity/Pluralism

Morality matters because, in our increasingly diverse global culture, it is critical for solving what may be the most important issue for our survival—namely, getting along with each other peacefully despite a plethora of irreconcilable differences. Os Guinness, in The Global Public Square , identifies the problem as such: “How do we live with our deepest differences, especially when those differences are religious and ideological, and when those differences concern matters of our common public life. In short, how do we create a global public square and make the world safer for diversity?”[9] The most obvious of these conflicts, one that has grown increasingly violent and intolerant in recent years, is between radical Islam and Western culture. But others, though less violent, are showing evidence of increasing intolerance of those who disagree. Take, for example, the response to businesses that choose not to provide services to same-sex wedding ceremonies. The well-publicized bakers and florists, and even Memories Pizza, who, out of sincere religious convictions, opted not to serve a same-sex wedding, found their livelihood destroyed as a consequence.[10] Or take Brendan Eich, founder and former CEO of Mozilla. Eich was forced out of his position because he contributed a small amount of money to Proposition 8 in California.[11] In addition, some state university systems and private colleges no longer allow some religious organizations and clubs to have a presence on campus because of their views. Increasingly, religious institutions, including schools, nonprofits, and businesses run by religious believers are finding themselves subject to highly coercive measures that would force them to abandon deeply held religious views or face severe sanctions that would force many out of business.

Morality matters because important virtues and moral principles are at stake in these public issues and because ethics is our best hope for establishing a framework for living together peacefully despite our ideological differences. Guinness insists that what we need goes beyond the traditional idea of religious freedom to what he calls “soul freedom,” which others have referred to as “freedom of conscience.” This extension of religious freedom is necessary because soul freedom applies to all human beings, whether or not they have religious faith. Guinness insists,

Indispensable to solving these challenges is the extension of soul freedom for all. Soul freedom is the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief that alone does full justice to the dictates of our humanity. . . . It best expresses human dignity and agency; it promotes freedom and justice for all; it fosters healthy giving, caring, peaceful and stable societies; and it acts as a bulwark against the countless current abuses of power and the equally countless brutal oppressions of human dignity. . . . Soul freedom is about nothing less than our freedom and responsibility to be fully human and to live together in thriving and beneficial communities.[12]

Mutual respect, tolerance, and peaceful resolution of conflicts—these are moral values, so the issue that Guinness raises is fundamentally a moral one. In order to deal with the increasing secularization of the culture, the privatization of faith that often results from the tensions raised by a secular culture, and the changing notion of tolerance (from treating people well with whom you disagree, to actually agreeing with their ideas), we require a new sense of moral pluralism.[13]

Morality and the Professions

Morality matters because practitioners in a wide variety of professions deal with moral questions, whether or not they realize it. For example, morality is fundamental to politics, since politics and law concern the way people ought to order their lives together in society. In addition, medicine and the sciences, such as genetics and molecular biology, have numerous moral overtones because they deal with the morally charged areas of life and death. Further, business practices provide a variety of ethical minefields that can challenge the integrity of the men and women striving to succeed in an ever more competitive global economy.

Morality matters because you face moral choices every day, both in the workplace and in your private life. Every so often you will face emotionally wrenching moral dilemmas that have no easy answers. Many decisions you make on a day-to-day basis also involve questions of right and wrong, some of which may have easy answers that are difficult to carry out. Ethics provides the basis for those decisions. Most people have an idea of what sorts of things are right and wrong. Explaining why you think something is right or wrong is altogether another question. The basis on which you make moral choices is often as important as the choices themselves. Yet few people have adequately considered how they justify their conceptions of right and wrong.

Finally, morality matters because debates on several issues, including abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, gun control, and capital punishment seem endless and irreconcilable, and they promise to continue far into the future. What many of these issues share is a fundamental disagreement over the ultimate source of moral authority . Some individuals hold that moral authority is ultimately a human construction, while others insist that moral authority comes from some transcendent source that is beyond human beings, such as a revelation from God or nature. As you read the newspaper and various news magazines and listen to television news, you will be increasingly aware of the importance of these issues. You will also notice that, apart from legal intervention, most of these issues are no closer to being resolved today than they were ten years ago.

Not only does intractable debate characterize these issues, but society has a general sense of bewilderment over many other issues. Many of these involve matters of science and technology that have run far ahead of ethical reflection. For example, genetic testing, gene editing, enhancement biotechnology, gender selection, various reproductive technologies, and the use of human embryonic stem cells in the treatment of certain diseases all involve moral dilemmas that are far from resolved. Most observers in these areas acknowledge that technology has outpaced society’s ability to determine the moral parameters for its use. Yet there remains a general sense that we need ethics to deal with our increasingly technological society.

More people have an interest in ethics today than at any other time in the recent past. Some of that interest is due to the complex issues spawned by technology, while others have an alarming sense of a general moral decline in society. In addition, the numerous scandals that have rocked the business community and other professions have left some to ask if “business ethics” and “professional ethics” are indeed oxymora. Some people are aware of the need to stress ethics and character in various educational arenas, including public schools. Many are also realizing that the value-neutral approach to education is not actually value neutral at all, and some even suggest that such value neutrality is impossible. Although there is a greater emphasis on character in view of well-publicized business ethics failures, ethics helps determine which character traits are admirable and worth cultivating.

Overview of the Book

As you read this book, you will be exposed both to ethical theory and to the application of that theory to the most pressing moral issues of the day. After this introductory chapter, we will consider how to think about morality. I will distinguish between subjective and objective views of morality and make the case for seeing morality as something objective, something we can know. That is, I will defend the view known as moral realism and contrast it with an antirealist view of ethics. Throughout the ages, many philosophers, even some whose inquiries predate the Bible, have wrestled with the questions of ethics and arrived at somewhat different answers. Recognizing, then, that the Bible is not the only source of ethical wisdom, chapter 2 provides a look at some other modes of moral reasoning, such as relativism, utilitarianism, and ethical egoism. We will also examine the major figures who systematized them, including Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant. These must be brief, but I have included resources, especially original sources, should you wish to study any of these individuals or systems further. For each alternative approach to ethics, I will describe the system and its major advocate, present the strong points of the system, compare it with Scripture, and critique the system, both from within the system itself and from the perspective of Christian ethics. In order to be able to converse with an increasingly secular world about ethics and morality, you need exposure to the ways in which other people have done ethics. Some of these approaches have things to offer to a Christian ethic and aspects of them can fit comfortably in that framework.

Believing that morality ultimately issues from the character of God, I find the most critical and foundational element of ethics to be the direction that God provides, both in his Word (i.e., special revelation) and outside his Word (i.e., general revelation). Chapter 3 will outline the distinctive elements of Christian ethics. Christian ethics is an enormous topic. This entire book could be about Christian ethics. Some works are entirely devoted to this subject. Here you will simply get a synthesis of the main parameters of biblical ethics.

Chapter 4 contains a model for making moral decisions and illustrates its use on some particularly knotty moral dilemmas. This model can be used in virtually any setting and does not require a particular worldview commitment for its profitable use, though it does presume a blend of deontological principles and virtues. I offer this model not as a type of computer program for generating correct moral decisions, but as a guideline to ensure that all the bases are covered when you make moral decisions. This chapter begins to build the bridge from theory to application that will be more clearly defined in subsequent chapters.

Chapters 5 through 16 deal with some of the current issues that are hotly debated in the culture at large. Discussion in these chapters will recognize the way these issues affect people individually (personal ethics) as well as how they affect public policy, if they do (social ethics). Since medical ethics involves some of the most frequently debated and complex issues, chapters 5 through 8 discuss such issues as abortion, reproductive/genetic technologies, and assisted suicide. Staying within the arena of ethics pertaining to life and death, chapter 9 addresses the issue of capital punishment. Chapter 10 takes up one of the longest running moral debates, the morality of war, which has some new questions raised, particularly in the ongoing war on terrorism. Chapter 11 addresses the subject of sexual ethics, which includes sexual orientation, same-sex marriage, and birth control. Chapter 12 will take up creation care and environmental ethics and deal with more recent issues such as climate change. Chapter 13 will address the intersection of ethics and economics, with an introduction to business ethics and a brief look at the moral assessment of the economic system of global capitalism. Chapter 14 will take up the controversial matter of violence and gun control, made more urgent with the recent mass shootings that have drawn such public attention. Chapter 15 will address issues of race, gender, and diversity, particularly the ethical issues raised by the cultural emphasis on diversity. Finally, chapter 16 will deal with the pressing issues related to immigration both in the United States and in Europe, though the discussion of immigration is quite different in those two contexts.

Introducing Key Terms and Distinctions in Ethics

One of the difficult aspects of studying a subject like ethics is that you are introduced to many terms with which you may be unfamiliar. For example, new members of the hospital ethics committee with whom I consulted were often unacquainted with terminology customarily used by ethicists. So, to keep you from the initial shock of jumping headfirst into a new subject, this section will introduce you to some of the key terms that you will often see as you read this book.

Most people use the terms morality and ethics interchangeably. Technically, morality refers to the actual content of right and wrong, and ethics refers to the process of determining, or discovering, right and wrong. In other words, morality deals with moral knowledge and ethics with moral reasoning and justification . Thus, ethics is both an art and a science. It does involve precision like the sciences, but like art, it is an inexact and sometimes intuitive discipline. Morality is the end result of ethical deliberation, the substance of right and wrong.

Major Categories

Three broad categories have traditionally fallen under the heading of ethics. They include (1) descriptive ethics , (2) normative ethics , and (3) metaethics . Normative ethics will be the primary concern in this book. We will be applying our normative ethic to various current issues, so, to be entirely accurate, we will be doing normative applied ethics in chapters 5–16.

First, descriptive ethics is a sociological or anthropological discipline that attempts to describe the morals of a particular society, often by studying other cultures. Anthropologists often use it in their fieldwork to describe the moral distinctives of other cultures.

Second, normative ethics refers to the discipline that produces moral norms or rules. Most systems of ethics are designed to tell you what is normative for individual and/or group behavior, or what is right and wrong, both generally and in specific circumstances. Normative ethics prescribes moral behavior, whereas descriptive ethics describes moral behavior. When we examine important moral issues in later chapters, we will be trying to establish a set of norms to apply to that particular issue. When most people debate about ethics, they are debating normative ethics, that is, what the moral norms should be and how those norms apply to the issues at hand.

Of course, ethics is not the only normative discipline that is interesting and relevant to ethics.[14] For example, the law produces legal norms but not necessarily moral ones, although law and morality overlap significantly. In addition, there are norms of good taste and social acceptability, which we call etiquette. Further, religion produces behavioral norms, often defined by a religious authority such as a pastor or other church official, that govern one’s relationship to God. In chapter 3 we will see that Christian ethics includes a substantial overlap between duties with respect to a person’s relationship to God and duties with respect to the community.

Third, metaethics is an area of ethics that investigates the meaning of moral language, or the epistemology of ethics, and also considers the justification of ethical theories and judgments. For example, it focuses on the meaning of the major terms used in ethics, such as right , good , and just . The primary focus of technical philosophers, metaethics has been receiving more attention from a popular audience today since more people are insisting that the language of right and wrong is nothing more than an expression of personal preferences. Accordingly, some argue that the judgment that pedophilia is wrong is not a statement about right and wrong but simply a personal distaste for pedophilia. Morality is thus reduced to matters of taste and preference and has little to do with right and wrong. We will look at this later in chapter 2 when we discuss emotivism.

When discussing whether someone or something is moral, it helps to be very specific. Normally, making a moral assessment involves at least four specific considerations.[15] First, you should consider the action itself. This is usually the focus of a moral assessment, but it is hardly the only aspect of moral evaluation. Second, you should evaluate the motive of the person (called the “moral actor”) performing the action. In some cases the motive is the only difference between two otherwise identical actions. For example, motive is often the only difference between giving a gift and bribery. Of course, sometimes you might not be able to determine the motive, in which case it cannot be assessed. In many cases, the assessment of motives should be held tentatively and cautiously given our lack of knowledge of someone’s thinking. Third, you should evaluate the consequences of your actions and decisions. Doing so does not necessarily commit you to a utilitarian framework for ethics, and regardless of your ethical framework, it is unwise to entirely ignore the consequences of your actions. We will discuss this further in chapter 2 when we get to utilitarianism. Fourth, although a bit more difficult to do than the previous three considerations, you should attempt to evaluate the character of the moral actor. Character is the tendency of a person to act in predictable ways over time. Virtue theorists have led the way in insisting that any ethic that does not concern itself with character and virtue is incomplete and reduces ethics to a mere preoccupation with actions, specifically moral dilemmas that people rarely face.

We evaluate character more often than we think. For example, when we decide who we can trust, we are assessing that person’s character, determining whether he or she is trustworthy. We certainly evaluate character when we make decisions about who we will marry, since character is critical to a good marriage. And we are usually asked to evaluate character when we write letters of reference for people. So the assessment of character is not something that should be foreign to us, though we realize that, like our judgment of motives, we may not have all the information we need to make an accurate assessment. In those cases our appraisal must remain somewhat tentative.

Ethical Systems

Moral theories, in their most basic classification, can be either cognitive systems, or noncognitive systems. Noncognitive systems, by definition, do not render judgments about the truth-value of ethical statements because for advocates of noncognitivism moral statements have no truth-value. They are simply expressions of personal approval or disapproval of the action in question. They have no value other than that expression and no relevance to anyone other than the person making the expression. According to noncognitivism, saying “adultery is wrong” is not making a statement that can be either true or false; it is saying, “I disapprove of adultery.” We will look at this further in chapter 2 when we take up the subject of emotivism. Most normative ethical systems are cognitive systems. These different styles of moral reasoning may be classified as either action-oriented or virtue-based systems. Under these two major divisions are three subcategories by which ethical systems may be further classified: deontological systems, teleological systems, and relativist systems. Most of the technical terms have to do with the action-oriented systems.

First, deontological systems are systems that are based on principles in which actions (or character, or even intentions) are inherently right or wrong. There are three primary deontological systems: (1) divine command theory , (2) natural law , and (3) ethical rationalism . Christians tend to be more deontologically oriented because of the emphasis in Christian ethics on the commands of God as moral absolutes and guiding principles. But Christian ethics have a substantial place for virtue ethics too, since a major part of the Christian moral life involves emulating the character traits of Christ and exemplifying the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:13–24).

Second, teleological systems are systems in which the morality of an action is based on the result produced by an action. Since the consequences rather than principles determine right actions for teleological systems, no action is inherently right or wrong in a teleological system. Whether an action is right or wrong depends on the consequences of that action. The primary form of teleological ethics is called utilitarianism , which holds that the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number is the moral choice. More specifically, utilitarianism defines the good generally as the greatest pleasure, or preference satisfaction, and seeks that for the greatest number. Another form of teleological ethics is called ethical egoism , which maintains that the right thing to do is whatever is in a person’s self-interest. Thus, for the ethical egoist the only consequence that matters is whether it advances his or her own self-interest.

Third, relativist systems refer to ethical systems in which right and wrong are not absolute and unchanging but relative to one’s culture (cultural relativism) or one’s own personal preferences (moral subjectivism). Both forms of relativism are widely embraced today. With the current emphasis on multiculturalism and appreciation for the cultural diversity that exists in much of the world, and the importance of a culture’s values in its self-definition, it should not surprise us that there is a movement toward accepting every cultures’ values as equally valid, which is the definition of cultural relativism. Moral subjectivism is advocated every time someone says, “Whatever is right for you is morally right, but what’s right for me is also morally right!” Such moral subjectivism is frequently seen in one’s view of sexual morality, in which a person is particularly sensitive to having a view forced on him or her, thus reducing sexual ethics to personal preference. This view of morality is often associated with a postmodern view of the world, in which objective truth and objective morality are called into question.[16]

Morality and the Law

As you might expect, there is substantial overlap between what is legal and what is moral. Most, if not all laws, have some moral overtones to them. Even laws regarding driving on the correct side of the road imply a respect for life and property. We rightly assume that the person who drives on the wrong side of the road and ignores other similar traffic laws has respect for neither life nor property. Most people hold that for laws to be valid they must have some connection to widely shared moral principles; that is, a law that violates society’s widely held values cannot be a valid one. Thus, in most cases there is a significant connection between law and morality.[17] This is not always the case, and thus there are occasions in which civil disobedience is morally justified.

As a general rule, we will assume that the law is the moral minimum . Obeying the law is the beginning of our moral obligations, not the end. Be careful about the person who insists, “If it’s legal, then it must be moral.” That view is that the law is the moral maximum, not the minimum. There are many things that are immoral that are not illegal. Take adultery for example. Most people would agree that cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, but no one (at least in the West) goes to jail for it. In addition, lying is immoral in most cases; but only in certain contexts, such as a court of law, would someone be prosecuted for lying. In most cases violating the law is immoral, except in rare cases where the law requires a person to do something that is unethical. For example, if the law required physicians to perform abortions for everyone who requested one, many physicians would consider that an immoral law, and they would be free to engage in civil disobedience—that is, they would follow their norms of morality, violate the law, and take whatever consequences the law meted out. But cases of civil disobedience are somewhat rare today, but when they occur, the person may follow the biblical dictum that “we must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29).[18]

So the law is the moral minimum. It is the moral floor, not the ceiling! The majority of our most interesting moral dilemmas occur when confronted with the question of how far beyond what the law requires our morality demands us to go. In other words, how far beyond mere compliance with the law do my moral convictions tell me I have to go? Most of the pressing demands of morality are in those spaces where the law is not definitive, where the law is silent, or where the law allows for something unethical.

However, many things that are unethical ought also to be illegal. For example, fraud is immoral, and most forms of fraud are also illegal, and justifiably so. I’m sure you can think of many other immoral activities that should be illegal, such as murder, child abuse, and sexual assault. Be careful of the person who insists, “You can’t legislate morality!” Whether that statement is true depends on what is meant by “morality.” If moral beliefs, motives, or intentions are meant, then those certainly cannot be legislated. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and speech, was written to keep the state out of the business of imposing beliefs on its citizens. A person’s genuine moral intent is changed by persuasion, not coercion, since intent has to do with one’s free choices. But if by morality one means “moral behavior,” then that can be, and is, legislated virtually every day around the world. Some cultures, such as Islamic cultures, use the force of law more routinely to enforce private moral behavior among consenting adults. But virtually every law is the imposition of someone’s morality, given the overlap between most laws and the moral principles that undergird them.

Some of the issues we will take up in the later chapters raise this question of whether a moral position should also be legislated in terms of public policy. For example, issues such as abortion, assisted suicide, human cloning, genetic privacy, and same-sex marriage raise important questions of what public policy should be on these matters. A variety of interest groups, including religious ones, attempt to influence what the law should be on these and other issues.

When religious groups or individuals get involved in public policy, it invariably raises questions about “the separation of church and state.” As originally intended, the First Amendment, which established religious freedom, only prohibited the federal government from establishing federally supported and federally sanctioned churches, as had been done in Europe with disastrous results, including religious wars and harsh persecution. The First Amendment guaranteed religious freedom by prohibiting the establishment of a national church. The government was supposed to be neutral toward all religious groups. This clearly emphasized freedom of religion.

From the separation of church and state, it did not follow that the state was to be neutral or hostile toward religion in general. Many of the founding fathers who wrote parts of the Bill of Rights were very clear that a democracy needed the moral restraints and the grounding for rights that religion provided.[19] The founding fathers never imagined a society in which the state would be neutral or hostile toward the value of religion for civil society. As A. James Reichley of the Brookings Institution said:

The founders’ belief in the wisdom of placing civil society within a framework of religious values formed part of their reason for enacting the free exercise clause. The First Amendment is no more neutral of the general value of religion than it is on the general value of the free exchange of ideas or an independent press. The virtually unanimous view among the founders [is] that functional separation between church and state should be maintained without threatening the support and guidance received by republican government from religion.[20]

Until recently, religious groups have freely attempted to influence public policy without anyone objecting that they are violating the separation of church and state.

You will undoubtedly be introduced to other new terms and ideas as you read this book. But don’t let the terminology intimidate you. Every thoughtful person should be concerned about and interested in ethics, since it addresses the ultimate questions about the good life, the good person, and the good society. As Socrates said in Plato’s Republic , “We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.”

Chapter Review

• How would you answer the question “Why be moral?”
• What is the myth of Gyges, and how does it relate to the question “Why be moral?”
• How is ethics important in fields such as business, medicine, and politics?
• How would you distinguish between ethics and morality?
• What are descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics?
• When a moral assessment is made, what must be assessed besides the action?
• What is the difference between deontological and teleological systems of ethics?
• How would you describe the relationship between morality and the law?
• What would you say to someone who maintains that you can’t legislate morality?

As with previous editions, Rae guides students in thinking critically and biblically about a range of issues—from abortion to euthanasia, sexual ethics to the morality of war. This fourth edition adds several contemporary ethical issues for discussion and consideration, including :

• Creation Care
• Animal Rights
• Gun-Control
• Race, Gender, and Diversity
• Immigration, Refugees, and Border Control

This introduction to ethics is particularly built with students in mind to help them navigate crucial moral choices. If you're an instructor, request an exam copy of the new fourth edition today and consider it for one of your ethics courses.

For Further Reading

Audi, Robert. Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State . New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Guinness, Os. The Global Public Square . Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2013. Inazu, John D. Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong . 7 th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011.

[1] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (London: Allen & Unwin,1954); Tolkien, The Two Towers (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954); Tolkien, The Return of the King (London: Allen & Unwin, 1955).

[2] Technically, the Republic is concerned with the question of justice—in Gyges case, whether a person would still desire to be just. But for Plato, justice for an individual was closely associated with virtue, since it was about justice in a person’s soul, so the illustration still fits the question “Why be moral?”

[3] Louis P. Pojman and James Fieser, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong , 7th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2012), 65–70.

[4] James Davison Hunter, The Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age Without Good and Evil (New York: Basic Books, 2008), xiii.

[5] Hunter, The Death of Character , xv.

[6] For further discussion on worldview, see James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door , 4 th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004); J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1998).

[7] For a good example of the connection between anthropology and ethics, see Nancy Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018).

[8] For further discussion of this topic, see R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014).

[9] Os Guinness, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2013), 13.

[10] Conor Friedersdorf, “Should Mom-and-Pops That Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed?,” The Atlantic , April 3, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/ 2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/? utm_source=eb.

[11] Conor Friedersdorf, “Mozilla’s Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values,” The Atlantic , April 4, 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/ mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/?utm_source=eb.

[12] Guinness, The Global Public Square , 14.

[13] See John D. Inazu, Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).

[14] Pojman and Fieser, Ethics , 3–7.

[15] Pojman and Fieser, Ethics , 8–11.

[16] For further reading on the impact of postmodernism and ethics, see Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000). See especially ch. 8, “Ethics without Reality—Postmodernist Style.”

[17] The classic discussion on the relationship between law and morality is in the following works: H. L. A. Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality (London: Oxford University Press, 1963); Lord Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (London: Oxford University Press, 1965); the debate between Hart and Harvard law professor Lon Fuller in Hart’s, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” Harvard Law Review 71 (February 1958): 593–629; and Fuller’s “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” Harvard Law Review 71 (February 1958): 630–72. The debate is summarized in Scott B. Rae, The Ethics of Commercial Surrogate Motherhood: Brave New Families (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), 126–29.

[18] See the writings of Martin Luther King on this subject, especially “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” in his book Why We Can’t Wait (New York: Signet, 1964).

[19] Here is a sample of the founding fathers’ view of religion in public life: Thomas Jefferson said, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” It seems clear that, as Jefferson wrote in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, rights and liberties are ultimately theologically grounded and need religious nurture in order to be maintained. He further stated that “religion should be regarded as a supplement to law in the government of men and as the alpha and omega of the moral law.”

James Madison , writing in the government charter for the Northwest Territory, said, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of learning shall forever be encouraged.” Here Madison, representing Congress, is calling upon the government to promote religious and moral education, which today would be considered a violation of the separation of church and state.

George Washington , speaking in his farewell address at the end of his second presidency, said, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason, and experience forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Benjamin Franklin , writing in his plan for public education, said, “[History shows] the necessity of a public religion, the advantage of a religious character among private persons and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. [The great mass of men and women] have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and to retain them in the practice of it until it becomes habitual.” All of the above citations are from A. James Reichley, Religion in American Public Life (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1985), 89–106.

[20] Reichley, Religion in American Public Life , 113.

Thank you! Sign up complete.

• Views 1,508
• Utilitarianism

Related Topics

• Antony and Cleopatra
• Social Problems
• Social Class
• Gun Control
• Black Death
• World History
• Alexander Hamilton
• Immigration
• Boston Tea Party

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism: A Moral Dilemma Explored

Academic anxiety?

Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task

124 experts online

Introduction

In the realm of moral philosophy, two towering giants have long vied for supremacy—Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics and the consequentialist framework of utilitarianism. As a curious student traversing the intricate pathways of ethical thought, I delve into the dichotomy between Kant and utilitarianism, aiming to unravel the foundations, implications, and conflicts of these contrasting approaches. This essay embarks on a journey through moral principles and ethical calculus, shedding light on the complexities that define the Kant vs. Utilitarianism debate.

Kantian Ethics: Duty and the Categorical Imperative

At the heart of Kantian ethics lies the resolute notion of duty—a moral obligation derived from rational principles rather than outcomes. Immanuel Kant’s framework centers on the concept of the categorical imperative, a universal law that guides ethical decision-making. Kant posits that actions are morally right if they can be willed as a universal law without contradiction. This approach stresses the inherent worth of individuals, advocating that they should be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. Kantian ethics prioritizes the intention behind an action rather than its consequences, emphasizing the importance of moral principles that transcend situational context.

Utilitarianism: The Calculus of Consequences

On contrasting close ethic utilitarianism of spectrum stands, consequentialist doctrine, that estimates the actions based on their results. It is inculcated in philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and later improved by John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism posits, that actions are morally right, if they maximized complete happiness or pleasure. Principle of most happiness for a most number conducts an utilitarian decision making, emphasizing importance of weighing of consequences of operating on prosperity of individuals. The accent of utilitarianism on the measurable and measurable aspects of happiness sets her not to mention about the Kantian accent of ethics’ on peculiar human cost.

Conflict and Ethical Dilemmas

The Kant vs. Utilitarianism debate comes to a head when confronted with ethical dilemmas that pit these two frameworks against each other. Kantian ethics’ unwavering commitment to duty and moral principles can clash with utilitarian calculations that prioritize the greater good. For instance, the classic “trolley problem” presents a scenario where choosing between saving one life and sacrificing one to save many becomes a moral quagmire. Kantian ethics may argue against sacrificing an individual as an end in itself, while utilitarianism may advocate for minimizing overall harm by making a difficult choice.

Implications for Moral Decision-Making

The Kant vs. Utilitarianism discourse reverberates in real-life moral decisions, guiding individuals and policymakers alike. Kantian ethics promotes moral consistency, urging individuals to act according to principles they would want universally applied. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, necessitates evaluating the consequences of actions on the overall well-being of society. The tension between these approaches becomes palpable when navigating ethical questions related to personal integrity, social justice, and collective welfare.

As I, a student seeking illumination in the corridors of ethical philosophy, traverse the terrains of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, I recognize the gravity of the moral dilemmas these frameworks evoke. The Kant vs. Utilitarianism debate underscores the fundamental clash between principles and consequences, intention and outcome. It serves as a reminder that ethical decisions are rarely clear-cut; they demand rigorous introspection and a nuanced understanding of the values that shape our moral compass.

References to the works of Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill provide a foundational understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. These references illuminate the rich tapestry of thought that informs the Kant vs. Utilitarianism debate, guiding our exploration of the ethical complexities that challenge our moral convictions.

This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly . Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

Need custom essay sample written special for your assignment?

Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism: A Moral Dilemma Explored. (2023, Aug 21). Retrieved from https://artscolumbia.org/kantian-ethics-vs-utilitarianism-a-moral-dilemma-explored/

More related essays

Germans – Immanuel Kant and Moses Mendelssohn Essay

Immanuel Kants Ethics Of Pure Duty Essay

Philosophical Ethics versus Professional Accounting Ethics Essay

Reflection of the Standard of Business

Contents 1. Introduction 2. What Is Business Ethics? 3. The 10 Benefit Essay

Ethical Principles of Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Deontology

Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics Essay

The Kant’s Principle: The Moral Law

Utilitarianism V. Kantianism Essay

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Reflecting on Moral Dilemmas with Practical Wisdom

Students will develop practical wisdom by reading and reflecting on a moral dilemma with a set of guiding questions. Question sets prompt students to draw on past knowledge, understand the current context, and weigh various options up against guiding principles in order to determine next steps.

Planning For It

When you might use this practice.

• To encourage greater self-awareness
• To cultivate practical wisdom in students
• To encourage empathy
• At the start of the school year

Time Required

• Upper Elementary
• Middle School
• High School

Learning Objectives

Students will:

• Practice working effectively in groups
• Reflect on what they have learned from other students
• Practice sharing their own thoughts, feelings, and/or life stories

Additional Supports

• Making Practices Culturally Responsive
• Adapting Practices for Students with Special Needs
• Making Classrooms and Schools Trauma-Informed and Healing-Centered

Character Strengths

• Practical Wisdom

SEL Competencies

• Self-Awareness
• Social Awareness
• Relationship Skills

Mindfulness Components

• Focused Attention
• Open Awareness
• Non-Judgment

How To Do It

Reflection before the practice.

• Consider a moral dilemma that you and/or a friend may be trying to address. As you think about the actions to be taken, consider the following questions: What past knowledge might inform your response to this situation? What might a friend or person you respect do in this situation? What emotions are you experiencing and how might they be clouding your thinking about next steps? What other factors might be influencing your thinking about the situation?
• Consider the potential actions you could take and what the consequences would be. Is there a solution or action that might best meet the needs of all individuals involved? What virtues might be relevant to this situation

Instructions

Introduce students to the concept of practical wisdom by sharing the following definition with them:

“Practical wisdom refers to your ability to know what the right thing to do is , know how to do the right thing, and to have the will to actually do the right thing across various situations.”

Explain to students that practical wisdom is important because it can help them navigate difficult decisions in ways that support their longer term goals and their ability to maintain strong, positive relationships. Thus, the goal is to practice the skills that can facilitate the development of practical wisdom by reflecting on the provided questions below as they decide how to respond to a moral dilemma.

Present students with a few moral dilemma scenarios. For examples of specific dilemmas look at the following links:

• https://www.theclassroom.com/moral-dilemma-scenarios-children-8434575.html
• https://studylib.net/doc/7725442/ethical-dilemma-scenarios-for-students

Have students break up into groups. Assign a dilemma to each group, or invite students to choose one dilemma to address.

Ask each group to read the dilemma and discuss the questions from each of the three categories below:

• What lessons have your parents or teachers taught you that could help you think about how you might respond in this situation? What values have they encouraged you to develop?
• Think of your closest friends, what qualities do they display, which you admire and how might they respond to this situation?
• Have you or a close friend ever encountered a similar situation? How did you or your friend respond to the situation? What was the outcome? What did you learn from your or your friend’s experience?
• Have you ever responded to a similar situation without much thinking? Was that useful? Why might taking sometime to think through your response be helpful?
• What are some contextual factors that might influence your response?
• How might you work to process your emotions, so that they don’t override your thinking and completely sway your decision?
• Who might you turn to, to get some input on the situation? What might that person say to you?
• Consider what actions you might take, write down what would be the consequences of each of those actions for all individuals involved in the situation? How severe are the consequences? Is harm being caused?
• Are there virtues that you value which are relevant to this situation? What are they and how might they be applied?
• Take a moment to consider why each person involved is engaged in a particular behavior.
• Is there a solution or action that might best meet the needs of all individuals involved?
• What might be the impact of your decision in the short-term?
• What about in the long-term? How might you take this into account?

After the discussion, and if time permits, have each group present their dilemma to the class and discuss what they will do and why. End the activity by having students write a short reflection about what they learned through this process.

Claire Briggs, Ph.D., Middlesbrough Psychology Service, Middlesbrough Council

Reflection After the Practice

• Was there anything that surprised you as your students shared influences to their thinking and potential responses to the dilemma (e.g., cultural values that were unfamiliar to you)? How might their responses inform your capacity to better support them in developing practical wisdom?
• Have you noticed a difference in student’s behavior, particularly in their responses to moral dilemmas?

The Research Behind It

Evidence that it works.

Social cognitive theories suggest that character develops through our day-to-day lived experiences, which are stored in our brains, providing us with helpful information that informs our responses to dilemmas as they arise. Such theories suggest that giving adolescents’ opportunities to develop reflective thinking skills can increase their practical wisdom. Practical wisdom refers to one’s ability to know what the right response is at the right time, particularly when faced with difficult situations.

In one study , researchers interviewed students between the ages of 12-15 to better understand how they approach decision-making, particularly when faced with moral dilemmas. Researchers were particularly interested in understanding what kinds of thinking skills needed to be developed and practiced so that they become more internalized and intuitive to students—or how students develop “practical wisdom.”

Researchers found that there are three interrelated processes that occur as students decide how to respond to a moral dilemma. Specifically, students activate and draw on existing knowledge, they pay attention to factors within the immediate context, and they weigh consequences against guiding principles to judge the best course of action.

Why Does It Matter?

Often, teachers focus on developing virtues in students like honesty, generosity, and forgiveness. Yet, many of the decisions we face in life are complicated and can often pit virtues against each other.

For example, a student may wonder whether to tell the teacher that his friend cheated on an exam or whether to remain loyal to his friend. Practical wisdom allows students to navigate dilemmas like these more thoughtfully, helping students understand what action is best in a particular situation—for all individuals involved. Thus, as students develop practical wisdom, it will help them navigate moral dilemmas with greater attentiveness to all the factors in play so that they can make values-based decisions that are responsive to a given context and the people involved.

GGIE Online Courses for Educators

Do you want to dive deeper into the science behind our GGIE practices? Enroll in one of our online courses for educators!

Ethics and Morality

The importance of being moral, it will make you liked and respected, though perhaps not understood..

Posted July 6, 2016 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

Anna Hartley , who earned her Ph. D. in social and personality psychology at Brown University, has studied the impact of morality , competence, and sociability on different types of evaluative judgments made in everyday life. This is important stuff to know if you want to be a good and successful person, or at least be perceived as such.

Imagine your daughter Bethany brings home her new boyfriend, Brad, for you to meet. What would be the qualities that would make you feel that Brad is a good person? If you could know just two or three qualities about Brad, what are the traits that would be most informative to understanding what Brad is like as a person? Would you want to know that he’s intelligent and outgoing ? Or that he’s honest, compassionate, and kind?

As it turns out, morality is the thing we care about most when forming impressions of a person (see Goodwin, Piazza, & Rozin, 2014). We care about a person’s morality more so than nearly any other factor, including their competence, sociability (friendliness), and a variety of other personality traits. Morality is a potent factor when it comes to evaluating others on a global level.

We know less about whether morality is as important when forming more specific types of evaluations. For example, evaluating whether we like or respect someone are two forms of evaluation that we make frequently in everyday life. For example, do I respect my new co-worker who constantly “borrows” my pens but doesn’t give them back? (Err, no.) Do I like my neighbor who brought me brownies when I first moved in? (Yes. I do.)

Liking and respect are distinct forms of evaluation. Liking reflects personal interest and attraction toward a person, whereas respecting reflects high regard and deference to a person. People are often liked for their communal traits, such as being cooperative and friendly, whereas they are respected for their agentic traits, such as being competent and accomplished. It’s unknown whether morality is more important to liking or respect.

Another equally important, yet distinct form of evaluation is understanding a person. What makes me feel that I truly understand who you are as a person? Some research in this area has shown that we see morality as central to identity : Your morality is what makes you you (Strohminger & Nichols, 2014).

But little is known about morality’s relative importance to liking, respect, and understanding. Morality may be central to all three, or it may be more important to one form of evaluation than another. For example, perhaps morality is especially important when deciding whether we respect a person, but less important whether we respect or understand a person.

Morality on the whole is important, but which moral traits are most important? For example, honesty, purity, and generosity are all elements of morality, but are they all equal in their importance to evaluation? Sometimes honesty can be undesirable, such as the person who is unflinchingly honest even at the cost of feelings (No, I did not need you to tell me my new haircut looks bad). Sometimes we find people who are extremely wholesome and sincere to be insufferable goody two shoes.

My colleagues and I examined these questions through two fundamentally different tasks in this article . In one task, we had participants rate real people and their personality traits (morality, competence, sociability). In the second task, we had participants rate a variety of personality traits and their relationship to people. We used two fundamentally different tasks to examine our research questions in order to see whether the results would replicate. Replication is good.

Morality is central to liking, respecting, and understanding people . What did we find? Morality was central to evaluation. When deciding whether we like, respect, and understand a person, we care most about whether that person is moral, more so than whether he or she is sociable or competent. However, morality was equally important to liking and respecting a person, yet relatively less important to understanding a person. It may be that understanding someone is more complex than liking and respecting, and is affected by a wider variety of personality, behavioral, or relational qualities. It’s also possible that people simply do not agree on what it takes to understand someone (e.g., I care about morality, but you care more about competence when trying to understand someone).

Which moral traits do we care about? Second, not all moral traits were equally important. Across many traits, honesty, compassion, fairness, and generosity were most important to liking, respecting, and understanding. Other moral traits, such as purity and wholesomeness, were seen as less important; even less than certain competent traits (e.g., intelligence , articulate).

I find it informative (and fun) to review Table 1 in the article and examine some of the traits that are uncharacteristic of someone liked and respected: needy, defensive, indecisive, lazy, and cheap. A lesson for the next time you go to dinner with friends: proactively offer a suggestion of a place to go, be able to get there independently, and don’t be stingy when the bill comes. And if someone questions your restaurant choice, for god’s sake, don’t be defensive about it.

Why is a person’s morality so important to us? You may be wondering at this point why morality is so important when judging others. Our results show that we consider moral traits so important in others, in part, because a person’s morality can benefit us in some way. Moral traits have social value. If I know a person is honest and compassionate, then I know that I can associate with that person safely, and can perhaps begin a fruitful relationship with them. From an adaptive perspective, moral traits signal to us whether we should approach or avoid and whether we should affiliate with that person. Affiliating with moral people can increase our fitness.

Clearly, morality is important in the interpersonal domain, but it would be interesting to know how morality factors in when evaluating companies or political candidates. Recalling the Volkswagen emissions scandal, consumers perhaps care about a company’s morality quite deeply, but for different reasons than for why they care about an acquaintance’s morality. And how does morality factor into citizens' perceptions of the presumptive presidential nominees in 2016? I’ll leave that for a political scientist or sociologist to examine.

Anna Hartley is a Research Scientist at Amazon in Seattle.

Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148-168.

Hartley, A. G., Furr, R. M., Helzer, E. G., Jayawickreme, E., Velasquez, K. R., & Fleeson, W. (2016). Morality’s Centrality to Liking, Respecting, and Understanding Others. Social Psychological and Personality Science , online first. doi: 10.1177/1948550616655359.

Strohminger, N., & Nichols, S. (2014). The essential moral self. Cognition, 131 , 159–171.

Joachim I. Krueger, Ph.D. , is a social psychologist at Brown University who believes that rational thinking and socially responsible behavior are attainable goals.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Moral Dilemmas

Moral dilemmas, at the very least, involve conflicts between moral requirements. Consider the cases given below.

1. Examples

2. the concept of moral dilemmas, 3. problems, 4. dilemmas and consistency, 5. responses to the arguments, 6. moral residue and dilemmas, 7. types of moral dilemmas, 8. conclusion, cited works, other worthwhile readings, other internet resources, related entries.

In Book I of Plato's Republic , Cephalus defines ‘justice’ as speaking the truth and paying one's debts. Socrates quickly refutes this account by suggesting that it would be wrong to repay certain debts — for example, to return a borrowed weapon to a friend who is not in his right mind. Socrates' point is not that repaying debts is without moral import; rather, he wants to show that it is not always right to repay one's debts, at least not exactly when the one to whom the debt is owed demands repayment. What we have here is a conflict between two moral norms: repaying one's debts and protecting others from harm. And in this case, Socrates maintains that protecting others from harm is the norm that takes priority.

Nearly twenty-four centuries later, Jean-Paul Sartre described a moral conflict the resolution of which was, to many, less obvious than the resolution to the Platonic conflict. Sartre [1957] tells of a student whose brother had been killed in the German offensive of 1940. The student wanted to avenge his brother and to fight forces that he regarded as evil. But the student's mother was living with him, and he was her one consolation in life. The student believed that he had conflicting obligations. Sartre describes him as being torn between two kinds of morality: one of limited scope but certain efficacy, personal devotion to his mother; the other of much wider scope but uncertain efficacy, attempting to contribute to the defeat of an unjust aggressor.

While the examples from Plato and Sartre are the ones most commonly cited, it should be clear that there are many others. If a person makes conflicting promises, she faces a moral conflict. Physicians and families who believe that human life should not be deliberately shortened and that unpreventable pain should not be tolerated face a conflict in deciding whether to withdraw life support from a dying patient.

What is common to the two well-known cases is conflict. In each case, an agent regards herself as having moral reasons to do each of two actions, but doing both actions is not possible. Ethicists have called situations like these moral dilemmas . The crucial features of a moral dilemma are these: the agent is required to do each of two (or more) actions; the agent can do each of the actions; but the agent cannot do both (or all) of the actions. The agent thus seems condemned to moral failure; no matter what she does, she will do something wrong (or fail to do something that she ought to do).

The Platonic case strikes many as too easy to be characterized as a genuine moral dilemma. For the agent's solution in that case is clear; it is more important to protect people from harm than to return a borrowed weapon. And in any case, the borrowed item can be returned later, when the owner no longer poses a threat to others. Thus in this case we can say that the requirement to protect others from serious harm overrides the requirement to repay one's debts by returning a borrowed item when its owner so demands. When one of the conflicting requirements overrides the other, we do not have a genuine moral dilemma. So in addition to the features mentioned above, in order to have a genuine moral dilemma it must also be true that neither of the conflicting requirements is overridden [Sinnott-Armstrong (1988), Chapter 1].

It is less obvious in Sartre's case that one of the requirements overrides the other. Why this is so, however, may not be so obvious. Some will say that our uncertainty about what to do in this case is simply the result of uncertainty about the consequences. If we were certain that the student could make a difference in defeating the Germans, the obligation to join the military would prevail. But if the student made little difference whatsoever in that cause, then his obligation to tend to his mother's needs would take precedence, since there he is virtually certain to be helpful. Others, though, will say that these obligations are equally weighty, and that uncertainty about the consequences is not at issue here.

Ethicists as diverse as Kant [1971/1797], Mill [1979/1861], and Ross [1930 and 1939] have assumed that an adequate moral theory should not allow for the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. Only recently — in the last fifty years or so — have philosophers begun to challenge that assumption. And the challenge can take at least two different forms. Some will argue that it is not possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. Others will argue that even if it were possible, it is not desirable to do so.

To illustrate some of the debate that occurs regarding whether it is possible for any theory to eliminate genuine moral dilemmas, consider the following. The conflicts in Plato's case and in Sartre's case arose because there is more than one moral precept (using ‘precept’ to designate rules and principles), more than one precept sometimes applies to the same situation, and in some of these cases the precepts demand conflicting actions. One obvious solution here would be to arrange the precepts, however many there might be, hierarchically. By this scheme, the highest ordered precept always prevails, the second prevails unless it conflicts with the first, and so on. There are at least two glaring problems with this obvious solution, however. First, it just does not seem credible to hold that moral rules and principles should be hierarchically ordered. While the requirements to keep one's promises and to prevent harm to others clearly can conflict, it is far from clear that one of these requirements should always prevail over the other. In the Platonic case, the obligation to prevent harm is clearly stronger. But there can easily be cases where the harm that can be prevented is relatively mild and the promise that is to be kept is very important. And most other pairs of precepts are like this. This was a point made by Ross in The Right and the Good [1930, Chapter 2].

The second problem with this easy solution is deeper. Even if it were plausible to arrange moral precepts hierarchically, situations can arise in which the same precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Perhaps the most widely discussed case of this sort is taken from William Styron's Sophie's Choice [1980] [Greenspan (1983)]. Sophie and her two children are at a Nazi concentration camp. A guard confronts Sophie and tells her that one of her children will be allowed to live and one will be killed. But it is Sophie who must decide which child will be killed. Sophie can prevent the death of either of her children, but only by condemning the other to be killed. The guard makes the situation even more excruciating by informing Sophie that if she chooses neither, then both will be killed. With this added factor, Sophie has a morally compelling reason to choose one of her children. But for each child, Sophie has an apparently equally strong reason to save him or her. Thus the same moral precept gives rise to conflicting obligations. Some have called such cases symmetrical [Sinnott-Armstrong (1988), Chapter 2].

We shall return to the issue of whether it is possible to preclude genuine moral dilemmas. But what about the desirability of doing so? Why have ethicists thought that their theories should preclude the possibility of dilemmas? At the intuitive level, the existence of moral dilemmas suggests some sort of inconsistency. An agent caught in a genuine dilemma is required to do each of two acts but cannot do both. And since he cannot do both, not doing one is a condition of doing the other. Thus, it seems that the same act is both required and forbidden. But exposing a logical inconsistency takes some work; for initial inspection reveals that the inconsistency intuitively felt is not present. Allowing OA to designate that the agent in question ought to do A (or is morally obligated to do A , or is morally required to do A ), that OA and OB are both true is not itself inconsistent, even if one adds that it is not possible for the agent to do both A and B . And even if the situation is appropriately described as OA and O ¬ A , that is not a contradiction; the contradictory of OA is ¬ OA . [See Marcus (1980).]

Similarly rules that generate moral dilemmas are not inconsistent, at least on the usual understanding of that term. Ruth Marcus suggests plausibly that we “define a set of rules as consistent if there is some possible world in which they are all obeyable in all circumstances in that world.” Thus, “rules are consistent if there are possible circumstances in which no conflict will emerge,” and “a set of rules is inconsistent if there are no circumstances, no possible world, in which all the rules are satisfiable” [Marcus (1980), p. 128 and p. 129]. I suspect that Kant, Mill, and Ross were aware that a dilemma-generating theory need not be inconsistent. Even so, they would be disturbed if their own theories allowed for such predicaments. If I am correct in this speculation, it suggests that Kant, Mill, Ross, and others thought that there is an important theoretical feature that dilemma-generating theories lack. And this is understandable. It is certainly no comfort to an agent facing a reputed moral dilemma to be told that at least the rules which generate this predicament are consistent. For a good practical example, consider the situation of the criminal defense attorney. She is said to have an obligation to hold in confidence the disclosures made by a client and to be required to conduct herself with candor before the court (where the latter requires that the attorney inform the court when her client commits perjury) [Freedman (1975), Chapter 3]. It is clear that in this world these two obligations often conflict. It is equally clear that in some possible world — for example, one in which clients do not commit perjury — that both obligations can be satisfied. Knowing this is of no assistance to defense attorneys who face a conflict between these two requirements in this world.

Ethicists who are concerned that their theories not allow for moral dilemmas have more than consistency in mind, I think. What is troubling is that theories that allow for dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding . A theory can fail to be uniquely action-guiding in either of two ways: by not recommending any action in a situation that is moral or by recommending incompatible actions. Theories that generate genuine moral dilemmas fail to be uniquely action-guiding in the latter way. Since at least one of the main points of moral theories is to provide agents with guidance, that suggests that it is desirable for theories to eliminate dilemmas, at least if doing so is possible.

But failing to be uniquely action-guiding is not the only reason that the existence of moral dilemmas is thought to be troublesome. Just as important, the existence of dilemmas does lead to inconsistencies if one endorses certain widely held theses. Here we shall consider two different arguments, each of which shows that one cannot consistently acknowledge the reality of moral dilemmas while holding selected principles.

The first argument shows that two standard principles of deontic logic are, when conjoined, incompatible with the existence of moral dilemmas. The first of these is the principle of deontic consistency

Principle of Deontic Consistency ( PC ): OA → ¬ O ¬ A .

Intuitively this principle just says that the same action cannot be both obligatory and forbidden. Note that as initially described, the existence of dilemmas does not conflict with PC. For as described, dilemmas involve a situation in which an agent ought to do A , ought to do B , but cannot do both A and B . But if we add a principle of deontic logic, then we obtain a conflict with PC:

Principle of Deontic Logic ( PD ): □ ( A → B ) → ( OA → OB ).

Intuitively, PD just says that if doing A brings about B , and if A is obligatory (morally required), then B is obligatory (morally required). The first argument that generates inconsistency can now be stated. Premises (1), (2), and (3) represent the claim that moral dilemmas exist.

Line (10) directly conflicts with PC. And from PC and (1), we can conclude

(11) ¬ O ¬ A

And, of course, (9) and (11) are contradictory. So if we assume PC and PD, then the existence of dilemmas generates an inconsistency of the old-fashioned logical sort. [Note: In standard deontic logic, the ‘□’ in PD typically designates logical necessity. Here I take it to indicate physical necessity so that the appropriate connection with premise (3) can be made. And I take it that logical necessity is stronger than physical necessity.]

Two other principles accepted in most systems of deontic logic entail PC. So if PD holds, then one of these additional two principles must be jettisoned too. The first says that if an action is obligatory, it is also permissible. The second says that an action is permissible if and only if it is not forbidden. These principles may be stated as:

(OP): OA → PA ;

(D): PA ↔ ¬ O ¬ A .

The second argument that generates inconsistency, like the first, has as its first three premises a symbolic representation of a moral dilemma.

(1) OA (2) OB (3) ¬ C ( A & B )

And like the first, this second argument shows that the existence of dilemmas leads to a contradiction if we assume two other commonly accepted principles. The first of these principles is that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. Intuitively this says that if an agent is morally required to do an action, it must be possible for the agent to do it. We may represent this as

(4) OA → CA (for all A )

The other principle, endorsed by most systems of deontic logic, says that if an agent is required to do each of two actions, she is required to do both. We may represent this as

(5) ( OA & OB ) → O ( A & B )

The argument then proceeds:

(6) O ( A & B ) → C ( A & B ) (an instance of 4) (7) OA & OB (from 1 and 2) (8) O ( A & B ) (from 5 and 7) (9) ¬ O ( A & B ) (from 3 and 6)

So if one assumes that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and if one assumes the principle represented in (5) — dubbed by some the agglomeration principle [Williams (1965)] — then again a contradiction can be derived.

Now obviously the inconsistency in the first argument can be avoided if one denies either PC or PD. And the inconsistency in the second argument can be averted if one gives up either the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ or the agglomeration principle. There is, of course, another way to avoid these inconsistencies: deny the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas. It is fair to say that much of the debate concerning moral dilemmas in the last fifty years has been about how to avoid the inconsistencies generated by the two arguments above.

Opponents of moral dilemmas have generally held that the crucial principles in the two arguments above are conceptually true, and therefore we must deny the possibility of genuine dilemmas. [See, for example, Conee (1982) and Zimmerman (1996).] Most of the debate, from all sides, has focused on the second argument. There is an oddity about this, however. When one examines the pertinent principles in each argument which, in combination with dilemmas, generates an inconsistency, there is little doubt that those in the first argument have a greater claim to being conceptually true than those in the second. Perhaps the focus on the second argument is due to the impact of Bernard Williams's influential essay [Williams (1965)]. But notice that the first argument shows that if there are genuine dilemmas, then either PC or PD must be relinquished. Even most supporters of dilemmas acknowledge that PC is quite basic. E.J. Lemmon, for example, notes that if PC does not hold in a system of deontic logic, then all that remains are truisms and paradoxes [Lemmon (1965), p. 51]. And giving up PC also requires denying either OP or D, each of which also seems basic. There has been much debate about PD — in particular, questions generated by the Good Samaritan paradox — but still it seems basic. So those who want to argue against dilemmas purely on conceptual grounds are better off focusing on the first of the two arguments above.

Some opponents of dilemmas also hold that the pertinent principles in the second argument — the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and the agglomeration principle — are conceptually true. But foes of dilemmas need not say this. Even if they believe that a conceptual argument against dilemmas can be made by appealing to PC and PD, they have several options regarding the second argument. They may defend ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, but hold that it is a substantive normative principle, not a conceptual truth. Or they may even deny the truth of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ or the agglomeration principle, though not because of moral dilemmas, of course.

Defenders of dilemmas need not deny all of the pertinent principles, of course. If one thinks that each of the principles at least has some initial plausibility, then one will be inclined to retain as many as possible. Among the earlier contributors to this debate, some took the existence of dilemmas as a counterexample to ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ [for example, Lemmon (1962) and Trigg (1971)]; others, as a refutation of the agglomeration principle [for example, Williams (1965) and van Fraassen (1973)]. The most common response to the first argument was to deny PD.

Friends and foes of dilemmas have a burden to bear in responding to the two arguments above. For there is at a prima facie plausibility to the claim that there are moral dilemmas and to the claim that the relevant principles in the two arguments are true. Thus each side must at least give reasons for denying the pertinent claims in question. Opponents of dilemmas must say something in response to the positive arguments that are given for the reality of such conflicts. One reason in support of dilemmas, as noted above, is simply pointing to examples. The case of Sartre's student and that from Sophie's Choice are good ones; and clearly these can be multiplied indefinitely. It will tempting for supporters of dilemmas to say to opponents, “If this is not a real dilemma, then tell me what the agent ought to do and why ?” It is obvious, however, that attempting to answer such questions is fruitless, and for at least two reasons. First, any answer given to the question is likely to be controversial, certainly not always convincing. And second, this is a game that will never end; example after example can be produced. The more appropriate response on the part of foes of dilemmas is to deny that they need to answer the question. Examples as such cannot establish the reality of dilemmas. Surely most will acknowledge that there are situations in which an agent does not know what he ought to do. This may be because of factual uncertainty, uncertainty about the consequences, uncertainty about what principles apply, or a host of other things. So for any given case, the mere fact that one does not know which of two (or more) conflicting obligations prevails does not show that none does.

Another reason in support of dilemmas to which opponents must respond is the point about symmetry. As the cases from Plato and Sartre show, moral rules can conflict. But opponents of dilemmas can argue that in such cases one rule overrides the other. Most will grant this in the Platonic case, and opponents of dilemmas will try to extend this point to all cases. But the hardest case for opponents is the symmetrical one, where the same precept generates the conflicting requirements. The case from Sophie's Choice is of this sort. It makes no sense to say that a rule or principle overrides itself. So what do opponents of dilemmas say here? They are apt to argue that the pertinent, all-things-considered requirement in such a case is disjunctive: Sophie should act to save one or the other of her children, since that is the best that she can do [for example, Zimmerman (1996), Chapter 7]. Such a move need not be ad hoc , since in many cases it is quite natural. If an agent can afford to make a meaningful contribution to only one charity, the fact that there are several worthwhile candidates does not prompt many to say that the agent will fail morally no matter what he does. Nearly all of us think that he should give to one or the other of the worthy candidates. Similarly, if two people are drowning and an agent is situated so that she can save either of the two but only one, few say that she is doing wrong no matter which she saves. Positing a disjunctive requirement in these cases seems perfectly natural, and so such a move is available to opponents of dilemmas as a response to symmetrical cases.

Supporters of dilemmas have a burden to bear too. They need to cast doubt on the adequacy of the pertinent principles in the two arguments that generate inconsistencies. And most importantly, they need to provide independent reasons for doubting whichever of the principles they reject. If they have no reason other than cases of putative dilemmas for denying the principles in question, then we have a mere standoff. Of the principles in question, the most commonly questioned on independent grounds are the principle that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’ and PD. Among supporters of dilemmas, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong [Sinnott-Armstrong (1988), Chapters 4 and 5] has gone to the greatest lengths to provide independent reasons for questioning some of the relevant principles.

One well-known argument for the reality of moral dilemmas has not been discussed yet. This argument might be called “phenomenological.” It appeals to the emotions that agents facing conflicts experience and our assessment of those emotions.

Return to the case of Sartre's student. Suppose that he joins the Free French forces. It is likely that he will experience remorse or guilt for having abandoned his mother. And not only will he experience these emotions, this moral residue, but it is appropriate that he does. Yet, had he stayed with his mother and not joined the Free French forces, he also would have appropriately experienced remorse or guilt. But either remorse or guilt is appropriate only if the agent properly believes that he has done something wrong (or failed to do something that he was all-things-considered required to do). Since no matter what the agent does he will appropriately experience remorse or guilt, then no matter what he does he will have done something wrong. Thus, the agent faces a genuine moral dilemma. [The best known proponents of arguments for dilemmas that appeal to moral residue are Williams (1965) and Marcus (1980).]

Many cases of moral conflict are similar to this example. Certainly the case from Sophie's Choice fits here. No matter which of her children Sophie saves, she will experience enormous guilt for the consequences of that choice. Indeed, if Sophie did not experience such guilt, we would think that there was something morally wrong with her. In these cases, proponents of the argument (for dilemmas) from moral residue must claim that four things are true: (1) when the agents acts, she experiences remorse or guilt; (2) that she experiences these emotions is appropriate and called for; (3) had the agent acted on the other of the conflicting requirements, she would also have experienced remorse or guilt; and (4) in the latter case these emotions would have been equally appropriate and called for [McConnell (1996), pp. 37-38]. In these situations, then, remorse or guilt will be appropriate no matter what the agent does and these emotions are appropriate only when the agent has done something wrong. Therefore, these situations are genuinely dilemmatic.

There is much to say about the moral emotions and situations of moral conflict; the positions are varied and intricate. Without pretending to resolve all of the issues here, it will be pointed out that opponents of dilemmas have raised two different objections to the argument from moral residue. The first objection, in effect, suggests that the argument is question-begging [McConnell (1978) and Conee (1982)]; the second objection challenges the assumption that remorse and guilt are appropriate only when the agent has done wrong.

To explain the first objection, note that it is uncontroversial that some bad feeling or other is called for when an agent is in a situation like that of Sartre's student or Sophie. But the negative moral emotions are not limited to remorse and guilt. Among these other emotions, consider regret. An agent can appropriately experience regret even when she does not believe that she has done something wrong. For example, a parent may appropriately regret that she must punish her child even though she correctly believes that the punishment is deserved. Her regret is appropriate because a bad state of affairs is brought into existence (say, the child's discomfort), even when bringing this state of affairs into existence is morally required. Regret can even be appropriate when one has no causal connection at all with the bad state of affairs. It is appropriate for me to regret the damage that a recent fire has caused to my neighbor's house, the pain that severe birth defects cause in infants, and the suffering that a starving animal experiences in the wilderness. Not only is it appropriate that I experience regret in these cases, but I would probably be regarded as morally lacking if I did not.

With remorse or guilt, at least two components are present: the experiential component, namely, the negative feeling that the agent has; and the cognitive component, namely, the belief that the agent has done something wrong and takes responsibility for it. Although this same cognitive component is not part of regret, the negative feeling is. And the experiential component alone cannot serve as a gauge to distinguish regret from remorse, for regret can range from mild to intense, and so can remorse. In part, what distinguishes the two is the cognitive component. But now when we examine the case of an alleged dilemma, such as that of Sartre's student, it is question-begging to assert that it is appropriate for him to experience remorse no matter what he does. No doubt, it is appropriate for him to experience some negative feeling. To say, however, that it is remorse that is called for is to assume that the agent appropriately believes that he has done something wrong. Since regret is warranted even in the absence of such a belief, to assume that remorse is appropriate is to assume , not argue, that the agent's situation is genuinely dilemmatic. Opponents of dilemmas can say that one of the requirements overrides the other, or that the agent faces a disjunctive requirement, and that regret is appropriate because even when he does what he ought to do, some bad will ensue. Either side, then, can account for the appropriateness of some negative moral emotion. To get more specific, however, requires more than is warranted by the present argument. This appeal to moral residue, then, does not establish the reality of moral dilemmas.

Matters are even more complicated, though, as the second objection to the argument from moral residue shows. The argument assumes that remorse or guilt is appropriate only if the agent believes that he has done something wrong. But this is questionable. Consider the case of a middle-aged man, Bill, and a seven-year-old boy, Johnny. It is set in a midwestern village on a snowy December day. Johnny and several of his friends are riding their sleds down a narrow, seldom used street, one that intersects with a busier, although still not heavily traveled, street. Johnny, in his enthusiasm for sledding, is not being very careful. During his final ride he skidded under an automobile passing through the intersection and was killed instantly. The car was driven by Bill. Bill was driving safely, had the right of way, and was not exceeding the speed limit. Moreover, given the physical arrangement, it would have been impossible for Bill to have seen Johnny coming. Bill was not at fault, legally or morally, for Johnny's death. Yet Bill experienced what can only be described as remorse or guilt about his role in this horrible event.

At one level, Bill's feelings of remorse or guilt are not warranted. Bill did nothing wrong. A friend might even recommend that Bill seek therapy. But this is not all there is to say. Most of us understand Bill's response. From Bill's point of view, the response is not inappropriate, not irrational, not uncalled-for. To see this, imagine that Bill had had a very different response. Suppose that Bill had said, “I regret Johnny's death. It is a terrible thing. But it certainly was not my fault. I have nothing to feel guilty about and I don't owe his parents any apologies.” Even if Bill is correct intellectually, it is hard to imagine someone being able to achieve this sort of objectivity about his own behavior. When human beings have caused great harm, it is natural for them to wonder if they are at fault, even if to outsiders it is obvious that they bear no moral responsibility for the damage. Human beings are not so finely tuned emotionally that when they have been causally responsible for harm, they can easily turn guilt on or off depending on their degree of moral responsibility. [See Zimmerman (1988), pp. 134-135.] And this is not a bad thing; for it likely makes agents more cautious about their actions, more sensitive about their responsibilities, and more empathetic regarding the plight of others.

All of this suggests that there are situations in which an agent's remorse or guilt is not inappropriate even though the agent has done nothing wrong. Because of this and because in any given situation the appropriate response may be regret and not remorse, opponents of dilemmas have a way to respond to the argument that appeals to the appropriateness of remorse.

It should be noted, however, that there is a complex array of issues concerning the relationship between ethical conflicts and the moral emotions, and the discussion here has been quite brief. [See Greenspan (1995).]

In the literature on moral dilemmas, it is common to draw distinctions among various types of dilemmas. Only some of these distinctions will be mentioned here. It is worth noting that both supporters and opponents of dilemmas tend to draw some, if not all, of these distinctions. And in most cases the motivation for doing so is clear. Supporters of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type V and W . The upshot is typically a message to opponents of dilemmas: “You think that all moral conflicts are resolvable. And that is understandable, because conflicts of type V are resolvable. But conflicts of type W are not resolvable. Thus, contrary to your view, there are some genuine moral dilemmas.” By the same token, opponents of dilemmas may draw a distinction between dilemmas of type X and Y . And their message to supporters of dilemmas is this: “You think that there are genuine moral dilemmas, and given certain facts, it is understandable why this appears to be the case. But if you draw a distinction between conflicts of types X and Y , you can see that appearances can be explained by the existence of type X alone, and type X conflicts are not genuine dilemmas.” With this in mind, let us note a few of the distinctions.

One distinction is between epistemic conflicts and ontological conflicts. The former involve conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements and the agent does not know which of the conflicting requirements takes precedence in her situation. Everyone concedes that there can be situations where one requirement does take priority over the other with which it conflicts, though at the time action is called for it is difficult for the agent to tell which requirement prevails. The latter are conflicts between two (or more) moral requirements, and neither is overridden. This is not simply because the agent does not know which requirement is stronger; neither is. Genuine moral dilemmas, if there are any, are ontological. Both opponents and supporters of dilemmas acknowledge that there are epistemic conflicts.

Another distinction is between self-imposed moral dilemmas and dilemmas imposed on an agent by the world , as it were. Conflicts of the former sort arise because of the agent's own wrongdoing [Aquinas; Donagan (1977 and 1984); and McConnell (1978)]. If an agent made two promises that he knew conflicted, then through his own actions he created a situation in which it is not possible for him to discharge both of his requirements. Dilemmas imposed on the agent by the world, by contrast, do not arise because of the agent's wrongdoing. The case of Sartre's student is an example, as is the case from Sophie's Choice . For supporters of dilemmas, this distinction is not all that important. But among opponents of dilemmas, there is a disagreement about whether the distinction is important. Some of these opponents hold that self-imposed dilemmas are possible, but that their existence does not point to any deep flaws in moral theory. Moral theory tells agents how they ought to behave; but if agents violate moral norms, of course things can go askew. Other opponents deny that even self-imposed dilemmas are possible. They argue that an adequate moral theory should tell agents what they ought to do in their current circumstances, regardless of how those circumstances arose. And given the prevalence of wrongdoing, if a moral theory did not issue uniquely action-guiding “contrary-to-duty imperatives,” it would be severely lacking.

Yet another distinction is between obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas . The former are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory. The latter involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. Some [especially, Valentyne (1987 and 1989)] argue that plausible principles of deontic logic may well render obligation dilemmas impossible; but they do not preclude the possibility of prohibition dilemmas. The case of Sartre's student, if genuinely dilemmatic, is an obligation dilemma; Sophie's case is a prohibition dilemma. There is another reason that friends of dilemmas emphasize this distinction. Some think that the “disjunctive solution” used by opponents of dilemmas — when equally strong precepts conflict, the agent is required to act on one or the other — is much more plausible when applied to obligation dilemmas than when applied to prohibition dilemmas.

As moral dilemmas are typically described, they involve a single agent . The agent ought, all things considered, to do A , ought, all things considered, to do B , and she cannot do both A and B . But we can distinguish multi-person dilemmas from single agent ones. The two-person case is representative of multi-person dilemmas. 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 . [See Marcus (1980), p. 122 and McConnell (1988).] Multi-person dilemmas have been called “interpersonal moral conflicts.” Such conflicts are most theoretically worrisome if the same moral system (or theory) generates the conflicting obligations for P1 and P2. A theory that precludes single-agent moral dilemmas remains uniquely action-guiding for each agent. But if that same theory does not preclude the possibility of interpersonal moral conflicts, not all agents will be able to succeed in discharging their obligations, no matter how well-motivated or how hard they try. For supporters of moral dilemmas, this distinction is not all that important. They no doubt welcome (theoretically) more types of dilemmas, since that may make their case more persuasive. But if they establish the reality of single-agent dilemmas, in one sense their work is done. For opponents of dilemmas, however, the distinction may be important. This is because at least some opponents believe that the conceptual argument against dilemmas applies principally to single-agent cases. It does so because the ought-to-do operator of deontic logic and the accompanying principles are properly understood to apply to entities about which decisions can be made. To be clear, this position does not preclude that collectives (such as businesses or nations) can have obligations. But a necessary condition for this being the case is that there is (or should be) a central deliberative standpoint from which decisions are made. This condition is not satisfied when two otherwise unrelated agents happen to have obligations both of which cannot be discharged. Put simply,while an individual act involving one agent can be the object of choice, a compound act involving multiple agents is difficult so to conceive. [See Smith (1986) and Thomason (1981).] To the extent that the possibility of interpersonal moral conflicts raises an intramural dispute among opponents of dilemmas, that dispute concerns how to understand the principles of deontic logic and what can reasonably be demanded of moral theories.

Debates about moral dilemmas have been extensive during the last five decades. These debates go to the heart of moral theory. Both supporters and opponents of moral dilemmas have major burdens to bear. Opponents of dilemmas must show why appearances are deceiving. Why are examples of apparent dilemmas misleading? Why are certain moral emotions appropriate if the agent has done no wrong? Supporters must show why several of many apparently plausible principles should be given up — principles such as PC, PD, OP, D, ‘ought’ implies ‘can’, and the agglomeration principle. Much progress has been made, but the debate is apt to continue.

Bibliography

• Aquinas, St. Thomas, 1964-1975, Summa Theologiae , Trans, Thomas Gilby et al, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Donagan, Alan, 1977, The Theory of Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1984, “Consistency in Rationalist Moral Systems,” The Journal of Philosophy 81 : 291-309, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 271-290,]
• Freedman, Monroe, 1975, Lawyers' Ethics in an Adversary System , Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
• Gowans, Christopher W. (editor), 1987, Moral Dilemmas , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Greenspan, Patricia S., 1983, “Moral Dilemmas and Guilt,” Philosophical Studies 43 : 117-125,
• –––, 1995, Practical Guilt: Moral Dilemmas, Emotions, and Social Norms , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kant, Immanuel, 1971/1797, The Doctrine of Virtue: Part II of the Metaphysics of Morals , Trans, Mary J. Gregor, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Lemmon, E.J., 1962, “Moral Dilemmas,” The Philosophical Review 70 : 139-158, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 101-114.
• –––, 1965, “Deontic Logic and the Logic of Imperatives,” Logique et Analyse 8 : 39-71.
• Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 1980, “Moral Dilemmas and Consistency,” The Journal of Philosophy 77 : 121-136, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 188-204,]
• Mason, H.E., (editor), 1996, Moral Dilemmas and Moral Theory , New York: Oxford University Press.
• McConnell, Terrance, 1978, “Moral Dilemmas and Consistency in Ethics,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 : 269-287, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 154-173,]
• –––, 1988, “Interpersonal Moral Conflicts,” American Philosophical Quarterly 25 : 25-35.
• –––, 1996, “Moral Residue and Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 36-47.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1979/1861, Utilitarianism , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
• Plato, The Republic , trans, Paul Shorey, in The Collected Dialogues of Plato , E. Hamilton and H. Cairns (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Ross, W.D., 1930, The Right and the Good , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1939, The Foundations of Ethics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1957/1946, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Trans, Philip Mairet, in Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre , New York: Meridian, 287-311,
• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1988, Moral Dilemmas , Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Smith, Holly M., 1986, “Moral Realism, Moral Conflict, and Compound Acts,” The Journal of Philosophy 83 : 341-345.
• Styron, William, 1980, Sophie's Choice , New York: Bantam Books.
• Thomason, Richmond, 1981, “Deontic Logic as Founded on Tense Logic,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic , Dordrecht: Reidel, 165-176.
• Trigg, Roger, 1971, “Moral Conflict,” Mind 80 : 41-55.
• Vallentyne, Peter, 1987, “Prohibition Dilemmas and Deontic Logic,” Logique et Analyse 30 : 113-122.
• –––, 1989, “Two Types of Moral Dilemmas,” Erkenntnis 30 : 301-318.
• Van Fraassen, Bas, 1973, “Values and the Heart's Command,” The Journal of Philosophy 70 : 5-19, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 138-153,]
• Williams, Bernard, 1965, “Ethical Consistency,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , supp, vol. 39 : 103-124, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 115-137,]
• Zimmerman, Michael J., 1988, An Essay on Moral Responsibility , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
• –––, 1996, The Concept of Moral Obligation , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Anderson, Lyle V., 1985, “Moral Dilemmas, Deliberation, and Choice,” The Journal of Philosophy 82 : 139-162,
• Atkinson, R.F., 1965, “Consistency in Ethics,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society supp, vol. 39 : 125-138.
• Baumrin, Bernard H., and Peter Lupu, 1984, “A Common Occurrence: Conflicting Duties,” Metaphilosophy 15 : 77-90.
• Blackburn, Simon, 1996, “Dilemmas: Dithering, Plumping, and Grief,” in Mason (1996): 127-139.
• Bradley, F. H., 1927, Ethical Studies , 2 nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brink, David, 1989, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1994, “Moral Conflict and Its Structure,” The Philosophical Review 103 : 215-247, [Reprinted in Mason (1996): 102-126,]
• Bronaugh, Richard, 1975, “Utilitarian Alternatives,” Ethics 85 : 175-178.
• Carey, Toni Vogel, 1985, “What Conflict of Duty is Not,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 66 : 204-215.
• Castañeda, Hector-Neri, 1974, The Structure of Morality , Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
• –––, 1978, “Conflicts of Duties and Morality,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 38 : 564-574.
• Chisholm, Roderick M., 1963, “Contrary-to-Duty Imperatives and Deontic Logic,” Analysis 24 : 33-36.
• Conee, Earl, 1982, “Against Moral Dilemmas,” The Philosophical Review 91 : 87-97, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 239-249,]
• –––, 1989, “Why Moral Dilemmas are Impossible,” American Philosophical Quarterly 26 : 133-141.
• Dahl, Norman O., 1974, “’Ought’ Implies ‘Can’” and Deontic Logic,“ Philosophia 4 : 485-511.
• –––, 1996, “Morality, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Requirements,” in Mason(1996): 86-101.
• DeCew, Judith Wagner, 1990, “Moral Conflicts and Ethical Relativism,” Ethics 101 : 27-41.
• Donagan, Alan, 1996, “Moral Dilemmas, Genuine and Spurious: A Comparative Anatomy,” in Mason (1996): 11-22.
• Feldman, Fred, 1986, Doing the Best We Can , Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
• Foot, Philippa, 1983, “Moral Realism and Moral Dilemma,” The Journal of Philosophy 80 : 379-398, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 271-290,]
• Gewirth, Alan, 1978, Reason and Morality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Goldman, Holly Smith, 1976, “Dated Rightness and Moral Imperfection,” The Philosophical Review 85 : 449-487, [See also, Holly Smith ,]
• Gowans, Christopher W., 1989, “Moral Dilemmas and Prescriptivism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 26 : 187-197.
• –––, 1994, Innocence Lost: An Examination of Inescapable Wrongdoing , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1996, “Moral Theory, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Responsibility,” in Mason (1996): 199-215.
• Griffin, James, 1977, “Are There Incommensurable Values?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 : 39-59.
• Guttenplan, Samuel, 1979-80, “Moral Realism and Moral Dilemma,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 80 : 61-80.
• Hansson, Sven O., 1998, “Should We Avoid Moral Dilemmas?,” Journal of Value Inquiry , 32: 407-416.
• Hare, R.M., 1952, The Language of Morals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1963, Freedom and Reason , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1981, Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Methods, and Point , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hill, Thomas E., Jr, 1983, “Moral Purity and the Lesser Evil,” The Monist 66 : 213-232.
• –––, Jr, 1992, “A Kantian Perspective on Moral Rules,” Philosophical Perspectives 6 : 285-304.
• –––, Jr, “ Moral Dilemmas, Gaps, and Residues: A Kantian Perspective,” in Mason (1996): 167-198.
• Hoag, Robert W., 1983, “Mill on Conflicting Moral Obligations,” Analysis 43 : 49-54.
• Howard, Kenneth W., 1977, “Must Public Hands Be Dirty?” The Journal of Value Inquiry 11 : 29-40.
• Kant, Immanuel, 1965/1797, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals , Trans, John Ladd, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
• Kolenda, Konstantin, 1975, “Moral Conflict and Universalizability,” Philosophy 50 : 460-465.
• Ladd, John, 1958, “Remarks on Conflict of Obligations,” The Journal of Philosophy 55 : 811-819.
• Lebus, Bruce, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas: Why They Are Hard to Solve,” Philosophical Investigations 13 : 110-125.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1990, “Moral Dilemmas,” Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 50 : 367-382.
• Mallock, David, 1967, “Moral Dilemmas and Moral Failure,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 45 : 159-178,
• Mann, William E., 1991, “Jephthah's Plight: Moral Dilemmas and Theism,” Philosophical Perspectives 5 : 617-647.
• Marcus, Ruth Barcan, 1996, “More about Moral Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 23-35.
• Marino, Patricia, 2001, “Moral Dilemmas, Collective Responsibility, and Moral Progress,” Philosophical Studies 104 : 203-225.
• Mason, H.E., 1996, “Responsibilities and Principles: Reflections on the Sources of Moral Dilemmas,” in Mason (1996): 216-235.
• McConnell, Terrance, 1976, “Moral Dilemmas and Requiring the Impossible,” Philosophical Studies 29 : 409-413.
• –––, 1981, “Moral Absolutism and the Problem of Hard Cases,” Journal of Religious Ethics 9 : 286-297.
• –––, 1981, “Moral Blackmail,” Ethics 91 : 544-567.
• –––, 1981, “Utilitarianism and Conflict Resolution,” Logique et Analyse 24 : 245-257.
• –––, 1986, “More on Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy 82 : 345-351.
• –––, 1993, “Dilemmas and Incommensurateness,” The Journal of Value Inquiry 27 : 247-252.
• McDonald, Julie M., 1995, “The Presumption in Favor of Requirement Conflicts,” Journal of Social Philosophy 26 : 49-58.
• Mothersill, Mary, 1996, “The Moral Dilemmas Debate,” in Mason (1996): 66-85.
• Nagel, Thomas, “War and Massacre,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 : 123-144.
• –––, 1979, “The Fragmentation of Value,” in Mortal Questions , New York: Cambridge University Press, [Reprinted in Gowans (1987): 174-187,]
• Nozick, Robert, 1968, “Moral Complications and Moral Structures,” Natural Law Forum 13 : 1-50.
• Paske, Gerald H., 1990, “Genuine Moral Dilemmas and the Containment of Incoherence,” The Journal of Value Inquiry 24 : 315-323.
• Pietroski, Paul, 1993, “Prima Facie Obligations, Ceteris Paribus Laws in Moral Theory,” Ethics 103 : 489-515.
• Price, Richard, 1974/1787, A Review of the Principal Questions of Morals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Prior, A.N., 1954, “The Paradoxes of Derived Obligation,” Mind 63 : 64-65.
• Quinn, Philip, 1978, Divine Commands and Moral Requirements , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1986, “Moral Obligation, Religious Demand, and Practical Conflict,” in Robert Audi and William Wainwright (eds.), Rationality, Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 195-212.
• Rabinowicz, Wlodzimierz, 1978, “Utilitarianism and Conflicting Obligations,” Theoria 44 : 1924.
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Railton, Peter, 1992, “Pluralism, Determinacy, and Dilemma,” Ethics 102 : 720-742.
• –––, 1996, “The Diversity of Moral Dilemma,” in Mason (1996): 140-166.
• Santurri, Edmund N., 1987, Perplexity in the Moral Life: Philosophical and Theological Considerations , Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
• Sartorius, Rolf, 1975, Individual Conduct and Social Norms: A Utilitarian Account of Social Union and the Rule of Law , Encino, CA: Dickenson Publishing.
• Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey, 1986, “Deontic Logic and the Priority of Moral Theory,” Nous 20 : 179-197.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, 1984, “’Ought’ Conversationally Implies ‘Can’,” The Philosophical Review 93 : 249-261.
• –––, 1985, “Moral Dilemmas and Incomparability,” American Philosophical Quarterly 22 : 321-329.
• –––, 1987, “Moral Dilemmas and ‘Ought and Ought Not’,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 : 127-139.
• –––, 1987, “Moral Realisms and Moral Dilemmas,” The Journal of Philosophy 84 : 263-276.
• –––, 1996, “Moral Dilemmas and Rights,” in Mason (1996): 48-65.
• Slote, Michael, 1985, “Utilitarianism, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Cost,” American Philosophical Quarterly 22 : 161-168.
• Statman, Daniel, 1996, “Hard Cases and Moral Dilemmas,” Law and Philosophy 15 : 117-148.
• Steiner, Hillel, 1973, “Moral Conflict and Prescriptivism,” Mind 82 : 586-591.
• Stocker, Michael, 1971, “’Ought’ and ‘Can’,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49 : 303-316.
• –––, 1986, “Dirty Hands and Conflicts of Values and of Desires in Aristotle's Ethics,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 67 : 36-61.
• –––, 1987, “Moral Conflicts: What They Are and What They Show,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 68 : 104-123.
• –––, 1990, Plural and Conflicting Values , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Strasser, Mark, 1987, “Guilt, Regret, and Prima Facie Duties,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 25 : 133-146.
• Swank, Casey, 1985, “Reasons, Dilemmas, and the Logic of ‘Ought’,” Analysis 45 : 111-116.
• Tannsjo, Torbjorn, 1985, “Moral Conflict and Moral Realism,” The Journal of Philosophy 82 : 113-117.
• Thomason, Richmond, 1981, “Deontic Logic and the Role of Freedom in Moral Deliberation,” in Risto Hilpinen (ed.), New Studies in Deontic Logic , Dordrecht: Reidel, 177-186.
• –––Vallentyne, Peter, 1992, “Moral Dilemmas and Comparative Conceptions of Morality,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 : 117-124.
• Walzer, Michael, 1972, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 2 : 160-180.
• Williams, Bernard, 1966, “Consistency and Realism,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , supp, vol. 40 : 1-22.
• –––, 1972, Morality: An Introduction to Ethics , New York: Harper & Row.
• Zimmerman, Michael J., 1987, “Remote Obligation,” American Philosophical Quarterly 24 : 199-205.
• –––, 1988, “Lapses and Dilemmas,” Philosophical Papers 17 : 103-112.
• –––, 1990, “Where Did I Go Wrong?” Philosophical Studies 58 : 83-106.
• –––, 1992, “Cooperation and Doing the Best One Can,” Philosophical Studies 65 : 283-304.
• –––, 1995, “Prima Facie Obligation and Doing the Best One Can,” Philosophical Studies 78 : 87-123.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

-->Kant, Immanuel --> | logic: deontic | Mill, John Stuart | Plato | Sartre, Jean-Paul

Acknowledgments

I thank Michael Zimmerman for helpful comments on this essay.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Types of Moral Principles and Examples of Each

Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Steven Gans, MD is board-certified in psychiatry and is an active supervisor, teacher, and mentor at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Jennifer A. Smith / Getty Images

• Development

Moral principles are guidelines that people live by to make sure they are doing the right thing. These include things like honesty, fairness, and equality. A person's morality or moral principles can be different from someone else's because they depend on how a person was raised and what is important to them in life.

To better understand your moral principles or those of people in your life, it helps to know the different types of principles and examples of each. We also share their impact, how they develop, and their possible pitfalls. But first, let's look at how moral principles came about.

History of Moral Principles

The history of moral principles dates back to Ancient Greece and Ancient China. Moral principles were important in these societies because they believed that to be successful, people needed a clear sense of right and wrong.

Research on moral principles began with Ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, who wanted to figure out the meaning of virtue. Later, moral principles were studied by philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

In the field of psychology, moral principles have been studied in the context of moral development. Psychologists seek to understand how children develop a sense of morality and how moral principles are applied in different contexts. For example, psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg studied moral development in boys from different cultures.

In the contemporary world, moral principles still play an important role and are considered guidelines for living life successfully. As an example, honesty is considered a moral principle because it keeps relationships strong.

Types of Moral Principles

There are two types of moral principles: absolute and relative.

• Absolute principles are unchanging and universal. They are based on universal truths about the nature of human beings. For example, murder is wrong because it goes against the natural order of things. These are also sometimes called normative moral principles or those that are generally accepted by society.
• Relative principles change depending on the situation. They are based on opinions and circumstances that may change over time, from person to person, or for different situations. Relative moral principles depend on a person's beliefs , relative to what people perceive as good or bad in relation to themselves. In other words, when someone says something is good, in most cases, they are really saying it is good for them or perhaps it contributes to their well-being.

Morals Examples

Some examples of absolute moral principles include:

• Don't kill.
• Speak the truth .
• Be careful with what you say and do to others.
• Respect the property of others.
• Treat people in need or distress as we would want to be treated if our situation were reversed.

Examples of relative moral principles are:

• It is morally wrong to spend money on a luxury item.
• It is morally right to care for our planet and preserve it for future generations.

How to Adhere to Moral Principles

Many people strive to live by the moral principles they believe in. But, it can be difficult to follow them all of the time, which is what makes following one's own personal moral values even more valuable.

There are many ways that a person might adhere to their moral principles: through thoughts and feelings, actions, or words. Below are some examples.

• In thoughts and feelings, a person might strive to be honest by being fair and kind .
• With actions, a person might live up to their moral principles by not being violent or aggressive.
• In words, someone might observe their moral principles through politeness.

Impact of Moral Principles

Moral principles are important for society because they help people learn how to get along and live well with each other . They teach us that all human beings deserve the same rights, which is why it's not okay to discriminate against someone based on their ethnicity or race. People who follow moral principles also tend to have a better quality of life than those who don't.

Moral principles can also impact an individual's identity and sense of self-worth . For example, someone who is honest may feel that they are a good person because they follow the moral principle to be truthful at all times. For people with strong values about equality, it might make them feel better about themselves when they don't discriminate against people who are different from them.

Tips to Develop Good Moral Principles

There are various ways to develop moral principles that transcend culture, religion, and country. If you are just starting on your moral journey, you might consider exploring morals in various philosophical texts.

However, there are also many practical steps a person can take to develop good moral principles:

• Think about what you would do when faced with an ethical dilemma and why you would make those decisions.
• Ask yourself what you think is right or wrong and make sure your actions are in line with those thoughts.
• Watch out for double standards , like being nice to one person while not being so kind to another.
• If it helps, write down a list of the moral principles you want to work on and post them where they're easy to see, like on a mirror or a sticky note that you hang in your workspace.
• Don't worry if you're not perfectly adhering to your moral principles. The important thing is that you are trying your best.

Pitfalls of Moral Principles

There are some things that can go wrong when following moral principles. Below are some examples of how moral principles may not always guide you toward the best course of action.

First, it's possible to make judgments about others based on your personal values and not theirs. For example, if you think all women should dress conservatively because you believe dressing another way is immoral, you are passing judgment on others based on your own set of standards.

In addition, it can be hard to tell the difference between a moral principle and something that's cultural or part of your upbringing. For example, you might believe women should defer to their husbands because in your culture everyone has traditionally agreed with this idea for generations; however, if you were born into a different country where people don't think this way, you might not feel that it's morally right.

Finally, sometimes people can use moral principles to justify bad behavior like stealing or hurting others in some way. For example, if you steal because you believe it will help the poor, your thoughts could be twisted to say that stealing is okay.

In general, moral principles are beneficial both to society and the individual person. However, blindly following moral principles without considering their origin or using your judgment based on the situation can lead to issues.

The best course of action is usually to adhere to a loosely defined set of moral principles that align with your beliefs and society as a whole while also considering each situation individually. Also, weigh the cost of adhering to your morals in terms of its impact on other individuals. Aim to do right by you and by others so everybody wins.

Puett M. Genealogies of gods, ghosts and humans: the capriciousness of the divine in early Greece and early China . In: Ancient Greece and China Compared .

Park S. Cultural relativism vs. cultural absolutism . Cultura . 2021;18(2):75-91. doi:10.3726/CUL022021.0004

Austin CL, Saylor R, Finley PJ. Moral distress in physicians and nurses: Impact on professional quality of life and turnover . Psych Trauma Theory Res Pract Policy . 2017;9(4):399-406. doi:10.1037/tra0000201

Macko A. Contingencies of self-worth and the strength of deontological and utilitarian inclinations . J Soc Psychol . 2021;161(6):664-682. doi:10.1080/00224545.2020.1860882

By Arlin Cuncic, MA Arlin Cuncic, MA, is the author of The Anxiety Workbook and founder of the website About Social Anxiety. She has a Master's degree in clinical psychology.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics — Divine Command Theory: An Examination of Morality and Religion

Divine Command Theory: an Examination of Morality and Religion

• Categories: Ethics Theory

About this sample

Words: 652 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 652 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1020 words

6 pages / 2770 words

5 pages / 2147 words

1 pages / 552 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethics

Utilitarianism is a prominent ethical theory that has influenced moral philosophy for centuries. In this essay, we will explore the definition and history of utilitarianism, examining its association with renowned philosophers [...]

Being a responsible person means taking the necessary steps to ensure that one is doing the right thing in the right way. It involves being accountable for one's actions and making wise considerations when faced with difficult [...]

In Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird," one of the most memorable characters is Atticus Finch, a lawyer who defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Atticus's decision to take on this [...]

Ethics and values are foundational principles that guide human behavior and shape the moral fabric of society. They define what is right and wrong, influence decision-making, and determine the standards by which individuals and [...]

Revenge is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated for centuries. Some argue that revenge is a natural human instinct, while others believe it is never justified. In this essay, we will explore the various [...]

Overview of the author's moral and ethical stance based on Levinas' theory Connection to biblical passage "Thou shalt not kill" Discussion of how scripture and Catholic teachings inform the author's conscience [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Election latest: Rishi Sunak heckled by GP at the end of 'torrid day'; Nigel Farage accused of 'bigotry' during debate

The latest updates from the general election campaign, as Rishi Sunak is heckled by a GP and Nigel Farage gets stuck in during a televised debate.

Saturday 8 June 2024 01:40, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Election news

• New poll reveals what public think about PM leaving D-Day events early
• 'The country is not stupid': Sunak laughs as GP heckles him
• Farage accused of 'bigotry' in TV debate
• Sunak apologises for D-Day decision and admits it was a 'mistake'
• PM says 'it's important we don't politicise this'
• Starmer says PM will 'have to answer for his own actions'
• Unite did not endorse Labour's election manifesto
• Electoral Dysfunction: What could be in the party manifestos?
• Live reporting by Brad Young

Expert analysis

• Rob Powell: It beggars belief someone didn't sound the alarm about PM leaving D-Day events early
• Tamara Cohen: Labour can't believe their luck

Election essentials

• Battle For No 10: PM and Starmer taking part in Sky News special
• Have your say: Be in the audience for our election leaders event
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Trackers: Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Follow Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more: Who is standing down? | Key seats to watch | How to register to vote | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency is changing | Your essential guide to election lingo | Sky's election night plans

Snap findings from a More in Common poll of more than 1,000 viewers of last night's BBC debate suggest Nigel Farage came out on top.

According to the poll results , the audience is most likely to think Reform UK's leader won, with 25% picking him.

Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner comes in second with 19%.

Just 7% thought Tory Penny Mordaunt won, but 32% believe she'd be a better prime minister than Rishi Sunak - with 12% picking him.

Full Results

• Nigel Farage - 25%
• Angela Rayner - 19%
• None of the above - 14%
• Carla Denyer - 11%
• Stephen Flynn - 10%
• Penny Mordaunt - 7%
• Daisy Cooper - 5%
• Rhun ap Iowerth - 2%
• Don’t know - 8%

Almost half (47%) of 2019 Tory voters watching the debate thought that Mr Farage won the debate, while Ms Rayner leads among 2019 Labour and Lib Dem voters who tuned in.

The poll also shows viewers are most likely to think the SNP's Stephen Flynn (net +31), the Green Party's Carla Denyer (net +31) and the Lib Dem's Daisy Cooper (+30) did well in the debate.

Reform's original candidate for Clacton will stand as an independent against Nigel Farage in the upcoming general election.

Anthony Mack quit Reform after he was replaced by Mr Farage earlier this week to vie for the seat in Essex.

But that hasn't stopped him from trying to win there.

Mr Mack is expected to hold a press conference later today.

Olympic athletes, top musicians and an ex-soap actor are among those standing to become members of parliament at the general election.

The deadline for candidates to submit their nominations passed earlier today.

Notable names on the list include:

• Blur drummer Dave Rowntree, Labour, Mid Sussex
• Double Olympic gold medal rower James Cracknell, Conservative, Colchester
• Rock star Tom Gray from the band Gomez, Labour, Brighton Pavilion
• Former Coronation Street actor Marc Anwar, independent, Bury North
• Gogglebox's Josh Tapper, Labour, Hertfordshire
• Olympian Marc Jenkins, Conservative, Gower

Count Binface has announced he will stand against Rishi Sunak in his Richmond and Northallerton constituency.

Speaking on his podcast, Trash Talk, Binface said it would be like "Fury vs Usyk times a billion" in the July 4 election.

"That's right, I am here right now in Richmond and Northallerton and I can announce that I will be taking on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in electoral combat on July 4.

"You shirked D-Day Rishi, you can't miss the B-Day.

"That's right. Binface vs Sunak is going to be Fury vs Usyk times a billion. Bring it on."

Binface recently came 11th in the London Mayoral Elections, where he earned 24,260 votes.

It was reported last weekend that allies of Penny Mordaunt claimed Downing Street was keeping her "in a box" during the election campaign because Rishi Sunak's team see her as a threat.

Well, after her barnstorming performance in a TV debate against politicians from six opposition parties, the Leader of the Commons is well and truly out of her box now. And she mustn't be put back in it.

Her opening words in this 90-minute showdown were explosive. The prime minister, she declared, had been "completely wrong" to leave the D-day ceremonies in Normandy early. No pulling of punches there.

She said the PM was wrong, not once, not twice, but three times. No wonder Number 10 see her as a threat. If this was an audition for a leadership bid after the election, her friends will claim she passed with flying colours.

But once she'd dug her black stilettos out of the PM's back with her opening remarks, after that she was relentlessly on message in hammering Labour on its policies on tax, immigration and crime.

She was at her most combative on the Tories' controversial allegation – first made by Rishi Sunak in his TV debate with Sir Keir Starmer on Tuesday – that Labour is planning a £2,000 tax grab if it wins the election.

This attack triggered the most heated clash of the whole debate, when Mordaunt traded blows with Labour's Angela Rayner on tax. It was a shouting match that went on long after presenter Mishal Husain attempted – but failed - to stop them.

It was all the more heated because the pair were standing next to each other at the end of the row of seven leading politicians, including Nigel Farage, the Lib Dems' Daisy Cooper and the SNP's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn.

For the rest of the debate, Rayner was slightly subdued, rather like Sir Keir had been against the PM on Tuesday. Rayner didn't even attack Sunak about D-day at the start. Nor did Daisy Cooper. Like Sir Keir, his deputy needs to raise her game.

Besides Mordaunt, on D-day Farage claimed Sunak had been unpatriotic and Flynn accused the PM of putting his own political career before public service and Normandy war veterans. Strong stuff.

Mordaunt also tore into Rayner over her previous voting record against renewing Trident. And the brightness of Rayner's red dress wasn't matched by a bright performance in the debate, although she improved as the debate went on. Mordaunt, incidentally, wore Thatcher blue. Remind you of anyone?

Throughout the debate, Farage was typically impish. His quips included claiming Starmer was "very dull" and "Blair without the flair". The PM, he joked, was "slippery Sunak". Yes, he's used those jibes before, but the audience enjoyed them.

Stephen Flynn had his good moments, most notably when he condemned Brexit, an attack on the Conservatives and Labour that the audience enjoyed.

But this debate was about Penny Mordaunt. It was her show, despite the large cast list. If she has been kept in a box by Number 10 up to now, the PM's allies will have been delighted on her attacks on Angela Rayner and Labour's policies.

But they won't have appreciated her blunt – and completely unprompted criticism – of the prime minister over the big story of the day, his D-day snub.

It was a story about a blunder of the PM's own making. It wasn't a gaffe, or an accident. It was sheer bad planning, terrible political judgment, embarrassing and highly damaging to Sunak and the Tory election campaign.

That, apparently was, Penny Mordaunt's view. And she said so. Number 10 won't be happy. A threat? You bet.

Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron has been the victim of a hoax video call and messages from someone claiming to be the former president of Ukraine.

The government said it was making the incident public to stave off any attempts to manipulate footage of Lord Cameron.

The Foreign Office said a "number of text messages were exchanged followed by a brief video call between the foreign secretary and someone purporting to be Petro Poroshenko, former president of Ukraine".

Mr Poroshenko served as Ukrainian president between 2014 and 2019, and has remained a prominent figure in the country since leaving office.

"Whilst the video call clearly appeared to be with Mr Poroshenko, following the conversation the foreign secretary became suspicious," the Foreign Office said, adding contact details for other people were requested by the caller.

"Whilst regretting his mistake, the foreign secretary thinks it important to call out this behaviour and increase efforts to counter the use of misinformation."

Politicians have received repeated warnings in recent months about the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation, especially as artificial intelligence technology improves.

The prime minister is not the only one whose feet are being held to the fire over D-Day 80th anniversary commemorations.

Northern Ireland's first minister has been criticised for not attending, with only the deputy going instead.

DUP leader Gavin Robinson said it had been an opportunity for Michelle O'Neill to act as a first minister for all.

"With men from across the island being remembered, I am disappointed that the deputy first minister was alone in Normandy and the other half of the joint office was absent.

"When we consider how so many from this island have only been able to openly remember their grandparents' war efforts in recent years, this was a missed opportunity for leadership and reconciliation."

He continued: "The first minister should recognise it was a mistake."

Mr Robinson also accused Rishi Sunak of undermining "the authenticity of the speech" he made at the British Normandy Memorial by departing early.

A spokesperson for the Executive Office said: "The Executive Office [TEO] receives many invitations and endeavours to attend as many events as possible.

"TEO is represented by the first minister, deputy first minister and junior ministers.

"This week, TEO was represented at events including the D-Day commemorations; business awards and the Your Time to Shine female leaders celebration event."

Crime is the last theme of the BBC's debate, with one audience member raising the issue of knife crime.

The Green Party's Carla Denyer says not all crime can be tackled by being "tough", explaining a generation of young people have grown up with services like youth centres closing.

Nigel Farage says "stop and search" must be done "in a very tough way".

"We are seeing a societal decline of law and order in this country," he says.

The Liberal Democrats' Daisy Cooper says the model of policing must be changed, with more community policing engaging with families and faith groups.

She says stop and search can be useful, but "suspicion-less" deployment of it has been used to target people.

Penny Mordaunt, the Conservatives Commons leader, says knife crime in London is "top of the list", but the host points out the West Midlands has a higher rate.

"We need more police and we need police who are embedded in communities," she says.

Labour's Angela Rayner says education and reversing cuts to neighbourhood policing is needed.

Rhun ap Iorwerth, of Plaid Cymru, says decision-making should be made closer to communities, calling for more devolution.

Stephen Flynn, of the Scottish National Party, says tackling poverty as a driver of crime is required, and those in poverty have been failed by the government.

The final 30 second concluding statements are under way. Angela Rayner goes first. "If you want change, vote Labour," she says, though it's as though she's memorising a script rather than talking with passion.

Carla Denyer, of the Greens, says Labour are offering more of the same and Labour has changed into the Tories. She got better as the debate went on. Iorwerth is lively and will have done his party some good here.

Penny Mordaunt is polished. "For a more secure future, vote Conservative," she says. She's been class here and shows why for the Tories, she's an underused asset. Daisy Cooper mentions sewage in rivers for the first time this evening. Why so late?

The last word goes to Nigel Farage, who says that unlike the others he doesn't need an autocue. He's right about that. He's been impish throughout, clearly enjoying himself. We'll see a lot more of him in this campaign. That's why he became party leader, of course!

We're staying with the BBC's seven-way political debate between senior figures in the UK's political parties.

"What matters to you more: Economic growth or successful climate policy?" asks an audience member.

Mr Farage says climate policies like net zero are unrealistic and unaffordable. 

"Nigel is going to keep your fact-checkers busy for a little while. Farage has been misleading you... so much of what he said there is simply untrue," says the Greens' Carla Denyer.

She criticises Labour for dropping a £28bn green investment  pledge earlier this year.

Labour's Angela Rayner says there will be investment including insulating homes and creating green jobs, but oil and gas will be part of the future.

The SNP's Stephen Flynn says Westminster is betraying future generations and his party maintains its commitment to net zero.

"We are facing an ecological emergency", and economic growth can come with tackling it, says the Liberal Democrats, calling for a national insulation scheme.

"Nothing is more important than protecting the environment that you will be living in in future," says Plaid Cymru's Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The Conservatives' Penny Mordaunt says moving to green policies too quickly will "destroy supply chains".

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free