Moral Standards versus Non-moral Ones

Why the need to distinguish moral standards from non-moral ones?

It is important to note that different societies have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are
deeply influenced by our own culture and context. For this reason, some values do have moral
implications, while others don’t. Let us consider, for example, the wearing of hijab. For sure, in
traditional Muslim communities, the wearing of hijab is the most appropriate act that women
have to do in terms of dressing up. In fact, for some Muslims, showing parts of the woman’s
body, such as the face and legs, is despicable. However, in many parts of the world, especially in
Western societies, most people don’t mind if women barely cover their bodies. As a matter of
fact, the Hollywood canon of beauty glorifies a sexy and slim body and the wearing of extremely
daring dress. The point here is that people in the West may have pitied the Muslim women who
wear hijab, while some Muslims may find women who dress up daringly despicable.

Again, this clearly shows that different cultures have different moral standards. What is a matter
of moral indifference, that is, a matter of taste (hence, non-moral value) in one culture may be a
matter of moral significance in another?

Now, the danger here is that one culture may impose its own cultural standard on others, which
may result in a clash in cultural values and beliefs. When this happens, as we may already know,
violence and crime may ensue, such as religious violence and ethnic cleansing.

How can we address this cultural conundrum?

This is where the importance of understanding the difference between moral standards (that is,
of what is a moral issue) and non-moral ones (that is, of what is a non-moral issue―thus, a
matter of taste) comes in. This issue may be too obvious and insignificant for some people, but
understanding the difference between the two may have far-reaching implications. For one, once
we have distinguished moral standards from non-moral ones, of course, through the aid of the
principles and theories in ethics, we will be able to identify fundamental ethical values that may
guide our actions. Indeed, once we know that particular values and beliefs are non-moral, we will
be able to avoid running the risk of falling into the pit of cultural reductionism (that is, taking
complex cultural issues as simple and homogenous ones) and the unnecessary imposition of
one’s own cultural standard on others. The point here is that if such standards are non-moral
(that is, a matter of taste), then we don’t have the right to impose them on others. But if such
standards are moral ones, such as not killing or harming people, then we may have the right to
force others to act accordingly. In this way, we may be able to find a common moral ground,
such as agreeing not to steal, lie, cheat, kill, harm, and deceive our fellow human beings.

Now, what are moral standards, and how do they differ from non-moral ones?

Moral Standards and their Characteristics

Moral standards are norms that individuals or groups have about the kinds of actions
believed to be morally right or wrong, as well as the values placed on what we believed to
be morally good or morally bad. Moral standards normally promote “the good”, that is,
the welfare and well-being of humans as well as animals and the environment. Moral
standards, therefore, prescribe what humans ought to do in terms of rights and obligations.

According to some scholars, moral standards are the sum of combined norms and values. In
other words, norms plus values equal moral standards. On the one hand, norms are
understood as general rules about our actions or behaviors. For example, we may say “We
are always under the obligation to fulfill our promises” or “It is always believed that killing
innocent people is absolutely wrong”. On the other hand, values are understood as enduring
beliefs or statements about what is good and desirable or not. For example, we may say
“Helping the poor is good” or “Cheating during exams is bad”.

According to many scholars, moral standards have the following characteristics, namely: 1)
moral standards deal with matters we think can seriously injure or benefit humans, animals, and
the environment, such as child abuse, rape, and murder; 2) moral standards are not established or
changed by the decisions of authoritative individuals or bodies. Indeed, moral standards rest on
the adequacy of the reasons that are taken to support and justify them. For sure, we don’t need a
law to back up our moral conviction that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong; 3) moral
standards are overriding, that is, they take precedence over other standards and considerations,
especially of self-interest; 4) moral standards are based on impartial considerations. Hence,
moral standards are fair and just; and 5) moral standards are associated with special emotions
(such as guilt and shame) and vocabulary (such as right, wrong, good, and bad).

Non-moral Standards

Non-moral standards refer to standards by which we judge what is good or bad and right or
wrong in a non-moral way. Examples of non-moral standards are standards of etiquette by which
we judge manners as good or bad, standards we call the law by which we judge something as
legal or illegal, and standards of aesthetics by which we judge art as good or rubbish. Hence, we
should not confuse morality with etiquette, law, aesthetics or even with religion.

As we can see, non-moral standards are matters of taste or preference. Hence, a scrupulous
observance of these types of standards does not make one a moral person. Violation of said
standards also does not pose any threat to human well-being.

Finally, as a way of distinguishing moral standards from non-moral ones, if a moral standard
says “Do not harm innocent people” or “Don’t steal”, a non-moral standard says “Don’t text
while driving” or “Don’t talk while the mouth is full”.

What are Moral Dilemmas?

First of all, let us define the term dilemma before we discuss the nature and dynamics of moral
dilemmas.

A dilemma is a situation where a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting
options, neither of which is acceptable. As we can see, the key here is that the person has
choices to make that will all have results she does not want. For example, a town mayor faces a
dilemma about how to protect and preserve a virgin forest and at the same time allow miners and
loggers for economic development in the town.
It must be noted, however, that if a person is in a difficult situation but is not forced to choose
between two or more options, then that person is not in a dilemma. The least that we can say is
that that person is just experiencing a problematic or distressful situation. Thus, the most
logical thing to do for that person is to look for alternatives or solutions to address the problem.

When dilemmas involve human actions which have moral implications, they are called ethical
or moral dilemmas

Moral dilemmas, therefore, are situations where persons, who are called “moral agents” in
ethics, are forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which resolves
the situation in a morally acceptable manner. Consider the following example.

Lindsay is a deeply religious person; hence, she considers killing humans absolutely wrong.
Unfortunately, it is found out that Lindsay is having an ectopic pregnancy. As is well known, an
ectopic pregnancy is a type of pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, most commonly in the
fallopian tubes. In other words, in ectopic pregnancy, the fetus does not develop in the uterus.
Now, if this happens, the development of the fetus will definitely endanger the mother. Thus, if
Lindsay continues with her pregnancy, then there is a big possibility that she will die. According
to experts, the best way to save Lindsay’s life is to abort the fetus, which necessarily implies
killing the fetus. If we do not abort the fetus, then Lindsay, as well as the fetus, will die.

In the above example of a moral dilemma, Lindsay is faced with two conflicting options, namely,
either she resorts to abortion, which will save her life but at the same time jeopardizes her moral
integrity or does not resort to abortion but endangers her life as well as the fetus. Indeed, Lindsay
is faced with a huge moral dilemma.

According to Karen Allen, there are three conditions that must be present for situations to be
considered moral dilemmas. First, the person or the agent of a moral action is obliged to make a
decision about which course of action is best. Here, the moral agent must choose the best
option and act accordingly. In the case of the example of above, Lindsay may opt to abort the
fetus as the best course of action. Second, there must be different courses of action to choose
from. Hence, as already pointed out above, there must be two or more conflicting options to
choose from for moral dilemmas to occur. And third, no matter what course of action is taken,
some moral principles are always compromised. This means that, according to Allen, there is
no perfect solution to the problem. And for this reason, according to Benjiemen Labastin, in
moral dilemmas, the moral agent “seems fated to commit something wrong which implies that
she is bound to morally fail because in one way or another she will fail to do something which
she ought to do. In other words, by choosing one of the possible moral requirements, the person
also fails on others.”

Types of Moral Dilemmas

There are several types of moral dilemmas, but the most common of them are categorized into
the following: 1) epistemic and ontological dilemmas, 2) self-imposed and world-imposed
dilemmas, 3) obligation dilemmas and prohibition dilemmas, and 4) single agent and multi-
person dilemmas.

Epistemic moral dilemmas involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements
conflict with each other and that the moral agent hardly knows which of the conflicting
moral requirements takes precedence over the other. In other words, the moral agent here
does not know which option is morally right or wrong. For instance, I ought to honor my
promise to my son to be home early, but on my way home I saw a sick old man who needs to be
brought to the hospital. Where does my actual duty lie? We cannot deny that there are conflicting
duties (moral requirements) here, but we need to note that we want a fuller knowledge of the
situation: Is an important purpose being served by my getting home early? How serious is the
condition of the sick old man? Indeed, I could hardly decide which option is morally right in this
situation. However, one option must be better than the other; only, it needs fuller knowledge of
the situation―thus the term “epistemic” moral dilemmas. Ontological moral dilemmas, on the
other hand, involve situations wherein two or more moral requirements conflict with each
other, yet neither of these conflicting moral requirements overrides each other. This is not
to say that the moral agent does not know which moral requirement is stronger than the other.
The point is that neither of the moral requirements is stronger than the other; hence, the moral
agent can hardly choose between the conflicting moral requirements. For instance, a military
doctor is attending to the needs of the wounded soldiers in the middle of the war. Unfortunately,
two soldiers urgently need a blood transfusion. However, only one bag of blood is available at
the moment. To whom shall the doctor administer the blood transfusion? For sure, we could not
tell whether administering a blood transfusion to Soldier A is more moral than administering a
blood transfusion to Soldier B, and vice versa.

A self-imposed moral dilemma is caused by the moral agent’s wrongdoings. For example,
David is running for the position of the town mayor. During the campaign period, he promised
the indigenous peoples in his community to protect their virgin forest just to gain their votes, but
at the same time, he seeks financial support from a mining corporation. Fortunately, David won
the elections, yet he is faced with the dilemma of fulfilling his promised to the indigenous
peoples and at the same time allows the mining corporation to destroy their forest. Indeed,
through his own actions, David created a situation in which it is impossible for him to be
discharged from both obligations. A World-imposed moral dilemma, on the other hand, means
that certain events in the world place the agent in a situation of moral conflict. William
Styron’s famous Sophie’s Choice is a classic example. “Sophie Zawistowska has been asked to
choose which of her two children, Eva or Jan, will be sent to the gas chamber in Auschwitz. An
SS doctor, Fritz Jemand von Niemand, will grant a dispensation to only one of Sophie’s children.
If she does not choose which one should live, Dr. von Niemand will send both to their death.
Sophie chooses her daughter Eva to go to the gas chamber. Her son, Jan, is sent to the Children’s
Camp.”

Obligation dilemmas are situations in which more than one feasible action is obligatory,
while prohibition dilemmas involve cases in which all feasible actions are forbidden. The
famous “Sartre’s Student” is a classic example. It reads:

moral dilemmas

The famous Sophie’s Choice, as mentioned above, is a classic example of prohibition dilemmas.

Finally, in single agent dilemma, the agent “ought, all things considered, to do A, ought, all
things considered, to do B, and she cannot do both A and B”. In other words, the moral agent is
compelled to act on two or more equally the same moral options but she cannot choose both. For
instance, a medical doctor found out that her patient has HIV. For sure, the medical doctor may
experience tension between the legal requirement to report the case and the desire to respect
confidentiality, although the medical code of ethics acknowledges our obligation to follow legal
requirements and to intervene to protect the vulnerable. In multi-person dilemma, on the other
hand, “…the situation is such that one agent, P1, ought to do A, a second agent, P2, ought to do
B, and though each agent can do what he ought to do, it is not possible both for P1 to do A and
P2 to do B.” According to Benjiemen Labastin, “the multi-person does not inasmuch as
agents X, Y and Z may possibly have chosen conflicting moral choices – that is, person X
chooses A instead of B and C and person Y chooses B instead of A and C, so on and so forth.
The multi-person dilemma occurs in situations that involve several persons like a family, an
organization, or a community who is expected to come up with consensual decision on a moral
issue at hand. A family may be torn between choosing to terminate or prolong the life of a family
member. An organization may have to choose between complying with the wage law by cutting
its workforce or by retaining its current workforce by paying them below the required minimum
wage. The multi-person dilemma requires more than choosing what is right, it also entails
that the persons involved reached a general consensus. In such a manner, the moral obligation
to do what is right becomes more complicated. On the one hand, the integrity of the decision
ought to be defended on moral grounds. On the other hand, the decision must also prevent
the organization from breaking apart”