Script Moral Dilemma

Hello Class good evening and how are you doing?, I hope you are doing fine with your subjects today
But moving on, let us proceed to your discussions on moral dilemmas

Dilemma: A Dilemma is a situation in which a tough choice has to be made between

two or more options, especially more or less equally undesirable ones.

A dilemma is a bit like having a problem with no perfect solution. It's when you have to
choose between two or more options, and each option has its pros and cons or rather
its advantages or disadvantages. For example, imagine you have a limited amount of
money, and you need to decide whether to spend it on a fun day out with friends or
save it for something important like buying a new bike. Going out with friends sounds
fun, but saving the money is responsible. So, a dilemma is like being stuck between
these choices, and you have to make a decision even though none of the choices is
ideal.

Moral/Ethical Dilemma: Now, a moral or ethical dilemma is a special kind of tough

choice that involves our sense of right and wrong. It's when you have to decide between
two actions, but both actions could go against important moral or ethical rules. Let's say
you find your friend's lost wallet with money in it. If you keep the money, you'd be
breaking the rule of honesty, but if you return it, you might be giving up something
valuable. It's like being in a situation where both choices feel a bit wrong because they
involve doing something that doesn't match with what's considered good or fair by
society's standards. So, a moral or ethical dilemma is about making a hard choice when
you want to do the right thing, but it's not clear what that is.

Obligation to Make a Decision: This condition implies that when you find
yourself in a moral dilemma, you have a duty or responsibility to think about the
situation and make a choice. You can't just pretend the problem doesn't exist or
hope that someone else will solve it for you. You are being in a position where
you must take action like when you're the captain of a ship and you have to
decide which direction to sail in, even if the weather is uncertain and the choice is
challenging.

In here class, Imagine you're the referee in a game, and you see a player breaking
the rules. You can't just ignore it because it's your responsibility to make a
decision, like giving a penalty or not. In moral dilemmas, you can't ignore them
either. You have to make a choice, even if it's a tough one, because it's your duty
to do what you think is right.
 2. Multiple Courses of Action: In a moral dilemma, there are often several
different paths you can take, each with its own set of consequences. These
choices are not always clear-cut, and they may involve difficult trade-offs. For
example, consider a scenario where you witness a coworker stealing office
supplies. You could report them to your supervisor, confront them directly, or
choose to say nothing. Each option has its consequences, and you must select
one from these alternatives. It's similar to having a lot of foods on a menu,
and you must decide which one you want to order, knowing that you can't
have them all.

Think of this like having different paths to take on a hiking trail. In a moral dilemma,
you're like the hiker, and each path is a different option or action you can take. Some
paths might be easier, like a smooth trail, and some might be harder, like a rocky one.
Similarly, in a moral dilemma, you have various options, and each has its own difficulties
and benefits.

3. Compromised Moral Principles: This condition acknowledges that in a moral

dilemma, no matter which option you choose, you may have to go against or
violate some of your deeply-held moral principles or values. It's like being in a
situation where you can't completely stick to all your personal rules about
what is right or wrong. For instance, if you decide to report your coworker for
stealing office supplies, you might feel like you're betraying your value of
loyalty, as it could harm your relationship with them. On the other hand, if you
say nothing to protect that relationship, you might feel like you're
compromising your commitment to honesty and integrity. This condition
emphasizes the ethical challenges of real-life situations, where there is often
no perfect solution that perfectly aligns with all your values, making moral
decision-making challenging.

Three types of Moral Dilemmas

Personal Moral Dilemmas: These are situations that happen to individuals in their everyday lives.
It's like when you face a tough choice that challenges your personal values or beliefs. For
instance, if you find a wallet with money in it on the street, you might be torn between keeping
it (because you could use the money) and returning it to the owner (because it's the right thing
to do). This is a personal moral dilemma because it's something you, as an individual, have to
decide.
Organizational Moral Dilemmas: These are moral dilemmas that occur within larger groups or
organizations, like businesses, hospitals, or government agencies. these moral dilemmas are like
tough choices that big groups or companies have to make. Imagine a big company that sells
things. They might have to decide between making a lot of money (by, , firing some of their
workers) or taking care of their employees (even if it means they make less money). These
decisions affect not just one person but everyone in the company. It's like a puzzle where they
have to figure out how to balance making money and doing the right thing. These kinds of
dilemmas can happen in hospitals, government offices, and societies too , not just only
businesses.

Structural Moral Dilemmas: These are complex moral dilemmas that involve a network of
different institutions and big, overarching ideas. It's like when you have to think about how
different parts of society, like the government, businesses, and educational systems, all interact
and impact people's lives. These dilemmas are about not just one organization but how society
as a whole deals with challenging ethical questions, such as how to distribute resources fairly or
address large-scale issues like climate change. They involve multiple sectors and require thinking
about big-picture solutions. (Add their explanations each)

Personal, Organizational and Structural

1. You find a wallet on the street with cash and identification. Do you return it to the
owner or keep it?
Answer: Personal. This is a personal moral dilemma because it involves an individual's ethical
decision regarding their own actions.
2. A pharmaceutical company must decide whether to release a medication that is not
fully tested but could save lives.
Answer : Organizational. This is an organizational moral dilemma because it involves a
decision made by a social organization (the pharmaceutical company) that impacts a broader
group of people.

3. A government is faced with the decision of whether to allocate its budget to healthcare,
education, or defense.
Answer: This is an organizational moral dilemma because it involves a decision made by a
social organization that impacts a broader group of people.
4. Global institutions and organizations must decide whether to prioritize the prevention
fossil fuels to avoid global warming which could also lead to the loss of profit.
Answer: Structural. This is a structural moral dilemma because it involves a complex network
of institutions (government departments) and operative theoretical paradigms (allocating
public funds), and it has broad societal implications.

MAIN ETHICAL THEORIES THAT SHAPE YOUR DILEMMAS

Utilitarianism: Focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing harm
Utilitarianism is like a way of making decisions where the main goal is to make as many
people as happy as possible or to make sure that as few people as possible get hurt.
Imagine you have to decide what game to play with your friends. If you choose a game
that everyone likes and will have fun playing, that's kind of like using utilitarianism
because it's all about making everyone happy. It's about picking the option that does
the most good for the most people.

Utilitarianism is a way of thinking about what's right or wrong based on one

main idea: making people happy or preventing them from getting hurt So, in
life, when you have to make choices, you can think like a utilitarian by picking
the option that brings the most happiness to the most people or causes the
least amount of sadness or harm. It's all about trying to do the best for
everyone involved.

Scenario: The Ice Cream Stand Dilemma

 Imagine you run an ice cream stand, and you have a limited amount of
ice cream left. Two customers approach you with different requests:

1. Customer A: Customer A is a regular customer who has been coming to

your stand for years. They ask for a double scoop of their favorite ice
cream, which you have just enough of to fulfill their request. They'll
leave happy.

2. Customer B: Customer B is a group of three children who are

celebrating a special occasion. They ask for three single scoops of
various flavors, which would use up all the remaining ice cream. They'll
be delighted with their ice cream.
 In this scenario, a utilitarian approach would recommend serving
Customer B because it maximizes overall happiness. While Customer A is
a loyal customer, serving Customer B brings joy to three children,
potentially creating more happiness overall, even though it might
disappoint Customer A temporarily.

Deontology is like a way of deciding what's right or wrong based on some special rules
or duties you think are really important. Imagine you have a list of rules that
you never break, no matter what. For example, you might believe it's always
wrong to lie, no matter the situation. So, even if telling a lie would help you
or save you from trouble, you'd stick to your rule of not lying because you
think it's the right thing to do.

there are certain rules or duties that should never be broken. It's a bit like following a set
of instructions or a moral rulebook. Say for example, Imagine you promised your friend
you'd never share their secrets. Even if it's tempting or would benefit you in some way,
you'd keep your promise because you think it's your duty to do so. That's a bit like how
deontology works – you follow rules and principles because you believe they're
important, even if it's not the easiest or most convenient thing to do.

The Promise Dilemma

 Imagine you have made a promise to a friend to help them move to a new
apartment on a Saturday morning. However, on that same Saturday, your boss at
work asks you to come in for an important meeting that could potentially lead to
a promotion.
 In a deontological ethical framework, the importance lies in keeping your
promise and honoring your duty.
 Even though the work meeting might offer personal benefits like a
promotion, your commitment to your friend takes precedence because you
have a duty to keep your promises.
 Therefore, you decide to stick to your commitment and help your friend
move as you initially agreed, even though it means missing the work
meeting.
Again in deontology, you focus on following these rules and duties because
you believe they're like moral principles that should always be respected,
no matter the consequences. It's all about doing what you think is right,
based on these important rules and duties, even when it's hard or when
there might be a tempting reason to do something different.

Virtue ethics is a way of thinking about what's right or wrong that focuses on becoming
a good and kind person. Instead of following strict rules or thinking about the results of
our actions, it's about building good character traits and being a better version of
ourselves. Imagine you have a friend who is always honest, kind, and fair to others.
Virtue ethics is like trying to be more like that friend. It's about developing qualities like
honesty, kindness, and fairness in ourselves, and believing that these qualities will guide
us to make good choices in life. So, instead of asking, "What rule should I follow?" or
"What's the best outcome?" in a situation, you'd think, "What would a good and kind
person do?" and try to act that way.

Scenario: The Honesty Dilemma

 Imagine you find a wallet on the street with a substantial amount

of money and identification inside. In this scenario, virtue ethics
would focus on the development of virtuous character traits,
particularly the virtue of honesty.

You have two options:

1. Keep the wallet: You could choose to keep the wallet and the
money, benefiting yourself financially, but this would be
considered dishonest.

2. Return the wallet: Alternatively, you could make an effort to

return the wallet to its rightful owner, even if it means not
benefiting from the money yourself. This choice aligns with the
virtue of honesty.

In this case, virtue ethics would encourage you to return the wallet
because it reflects the development of the virtuous character trait
of honesty.
Virtue ethics emphasizes cultivating moral virtues like honesty,
integrity, and compassion as the foundation for ethical decision-
making rather than focusing solely on consequences or duties.

Instead of following strict rules or worrying about what will happen as a result of
our actions, virtue ethics is about becoming a better version of ourselves. We focus
on developing good qualities like honesty, kindness, and fairness. We believe that
having these good qualities will help us make the right choices in life.
SCRIPT NO. 2 Kohlberg’s theory of Moral Development
 Professor of Education and Social Psychology at Harvard University
 Began as a developmental psychologist then moved to the field of
education
Particularly well known for his theory of moral development where he
developed his extensive research on the topic at Harvard Center for Moral
Education
Kohlberg's theory of Moral Development explains how individuals progress through stages of moral
reasoning as they grow and gain life experiences. It emphasizes that our understanding of right and wrong
becomes more sophisticated with time, and these stages of moral development are based on observed
patterns in how people approach moral dilemmas.

A. Suggests that as people grow and mature, they progress through different
stages of moral reasoning which Kohlberg's theory of Moral Development states
that as individuals grow and gain life experiences, they advance through various stages of
moral reasoning. Think of this progression as moving from a simpler understanding of
right and wrong to a more sophisticated one. It's similar to climbing a ladder of moral
understanding.
As people age, they tend to become more capable of considering multiple factors and
perspectives when making moral decisions. This growth in moral reasoning is a natural part of
human development.

B. Characterized by distinct patterns of thought and ethical considerations. In

here, At each stage of moral development, individuals tend to approach ethical dilemmas
and decisions in specific ways. These stages represent distinct patterns of thought when it
comes to determining what is morally acceptable.
For example, in the early stages, individuals may focus on avoiding punishment or seeking
rewards as the basis for their moral choices. As they progress through the stages, they start to
consider concepts like fairness, societal norms, and the welfare of others. Ultimately, some
individuals may reach a stage where they base their moral judgments on universal ethical
principles.

C. Kohlberg developed his theory through extensive research involving interviews and
observations of individuals, primarily children and adolescents, as they encountered
moral dilemmas. He used these real-life scenarios to understand how individuals of
different ages and backgrounds approached moral decision-making.
By analyzing these conversations and observations, Kohlberg identified consistent patterns in
how people's moral reasoning evolved as they matured. His theory was not merely a product of
speculation; it was grounded in empirical research.

Hienz Dilemma

The Heinz Dilemma is like a little story that helps us understand how people think about what's
right and wrong. In this situation, Imagine there's a man named Heinz, and his wife is very sick.
She needs a special medicine to get better, but it's super expensive. Heinz can't afford it, so he
has to decide what to do.

Here's where the dilemma comes in:

1. Stealing the Medicine: Heinz can steal the medicine to save his wife's life. Is it okay for
him to steal in this situation?
2. Not Stealing the Medicine: On the other hand, Heinz can choose not to steal the
medicine, and his wife might die because she doesn't get the medicine. Is it okay for him
to let his wife die because he won't steal?

Now, the Heinz Dilemma isn't just about what Heinz should do. It's about how different people
might think about this situation:

 Some might say it's okay for Heinz to steal because saving a life is more important than
following the rules.
 Others might say he should not steal because stealing is always wrong, no matter what.
 Some might think there's a middle ground or that it depends on the situation.

Kohlberg used this dilemma to understand how people justify and explain their ideas about right
and wrong. It helps us see how our moral thinking can change as we grow up and develop our
own sense of ethics.

In your Kohlberg’s Development theory, there are levels that measures the reasoning of individuals as
they mature the first one is the Pre-Conventional Level, this moral reasoning is primarily guided by
self-interest and a basic understanding of consequences. This level is often seen in children and some
adults who haven't yet fully developed a broader sense of ethics It is characterized by a rather self-
centered approach to morality. People at this stage are primarily concerned with avoiding negative
consequences and gaining personal advantages. They haven't yet fully grasped more complex moral
concepts like fairness, empathy, or universal ethical principles, which come into play in the later
stages of moral development. As individuals grow and gain life experiences, they often move beyond
this level towards a more mature understanding of morality. Under this level we have two stages;
Which is your obedience and punishment as well as your individualism and exchange.

In Stage 1 of Kohlberg's theory of moral development, known as the Obedience and Punishment
Orientation, individuals make moral decisions based on a simple principle: the fear of punishment.
They view actions as wrong if they might result in negative consequences or getting into trouble. This
stage reflects a basic, rule-based understanding of morality, where individuals follow rules strictly to
avoid reprimands or punishments from authority figures like parents or teachers. For instance, a child
refrains from stealing cookies from the cookie jar not because they comprehend the moral principle of
stealing being wrong but because they're afraid of being scolded or punished if caught. This stage
represents an early, limited form of moral reasoning primarily centered around self-preservation and
avoiding negative outcomes.
 In the Heinz Dilemma, someone at Stage 1 might argue that Heinz should not steal the drug
because stealing is against the law, and breaking the law leads to punishment.

In Stage 2 of Kohlberg's theory of moral development, referred to as the Individualism and Exchange
stage, individuals make moral decisions with a strong emphasis on personal gain and self-interest.
Here, morality is perceived as a sort of transaction or exchange, where individuals engage in good
deeds or cooperation primarily if they anticipate a personal benefit or favor in return. This stage
reflects a more calculated approach to morality, where actions are driven by the question, "What's in it
for me?" People in this stage often engage in acts of kindness or cooperation, but these actions are
typically conditional, expecting reciprocity. For instance, an individual might help a friend move
furniture not solely out of genuine goodwill but because they foresee their friend assisting them with
something else in the future. It's a stage that highlights the concept of "you scratch my back, and I'll
scratch yours" as a guiding principle for moral decision-making. While it demonstrates a form of
social exchange and cooperation, it still primarily revolves around personal benefit and lacks a
broader understanding of moral principles like empathy or universal fairness.
 An individual at Stage 2 may suggest that Heinz should steal the drug because saving his
wife is in his best interest, and the benefit outweighs the cost (breaking the law).
The Conventional Stage is the next level in Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development. In
this stage, people make moral decisions based on societal norms, rules, and the desire to maintain
social order. They follow what is considered right and wrong by their culture or community, and they
value things like loyalty, obedience to authority, and being a good citizen. Essentially, they want to fit
in and be seen as "good" by following the rules and expectations of their society. It's like they're
saying, "I'll do what's right because it's what everyone else is doing, and it helps keep things running
smoothly." This stage typically reflects the moral thinking of teenagers and many adults. In this stage

we have your : Interpersonal Relationships and Maintaining Social Order

Stage 3: Interpersonal Relationships and Maintaining Social Order

In the Interpersonal Relationships stage, people place a strong emphasis on being seen as a good and
caring person by those they are close to, such as family and friends or people from the society . They
make moral decisions with the aim of preserving these interpersonal relationships and ensuring
harmony within their societyAt this stage, individuals are driven by a desire to be liked, accepted,
and appreciated by others. They value qualities like trust, empathy, and kindness, and they strive to
avoid behaviors that might hurt or upset the people all around them . Essentially, the moral compass
at this stage is guided by the question, "What would I do to make people happy?" It's a significant
step in moral development where personal relationships and the emotions of others become central
factors in shaping one's ethical choices.
For example: Avoiding Hurtful Comments: In a social gathering, an individual refrains from
making sarcastic or hurtful comments about someone else, even if they find it amusing, because they
prioritize maintaining a friendly and respectful atmosphere among their friends.
 Someone at Stage 3 might argue that Heinz should steal the drug because it's the right thing
to do to help his wife, and his actions will be seen as moral by others.

In Stage 4 of Kohlberg's moral development theory, known as "Maintaining Social Order,"

individuals make moral decisions based on a deep respect for established laws, rules, and the
structures that maintain social stability or social. They believe that a well-ordered society depends on
everyone adhering to these principles and fulfilling their civic duties. Their moral compass is guided
by a sense of responsibility to uphold societal rules. Actions that are opposite to established laws or
institutions may be viewed as morally wrong, as they disrupt the social order. For example, a person
in this stage might obey traffic laws not just to avoid penalties but because they see it as a moral
obligation to contribute to the smooth functioning of society and ensure the safety of all. It's a stage
where adherence to authority and a commitment to preserving social cohesion play a central role in
shaping moral decisions.
 An individual at Stage 4 could argue that Heinz should respect the law and property rights
because doing so preserves social order and prevents chaos.
The Post-Conventional Level is the highest level in Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral
development. At this stage, individuals make moral decisions based on their personal principles and
values, even if they go against society's rules or norms. They prioritize universal ethical principles
like justice, equality, and human rights over obeying authority or following societal conventions.
Essentially, it's about doing what they believe is right, even when it may conflict with established
laws or the expectations of their culture. This level is relatively rare and typically seen in adults who
have a strong sense of moral independence and a deep commitment to ethical principles. This stage
involves your Social Contract and Individual Rights as well as your Universal Principles.

In the stage of "Social Contract and Individual Rights," people care a lot
about what's good for everyone, not just themselves. They genuinely care
about the feelings and needs of others. They see the rules and laws in society
 as agreements that should make sure everyone is treated fairly and has the
same rights. If a rule doesn't treat everyone fairly, they might question it
because they believe in justice and the rights of every person. It's like they
want to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake in society, and they're
willing to stand up for what's right, even if it goes against the rules
sometimes.

Someone at Stage 5 might argue that Heinz should steal the

drug because there is a higher moral duty to save a life and
protect the right to life, even if it means breaking a specific
law.

Stage 6 - Universal Ethical Principles

In the Universal Ethical Principles stage, individuals make moral decisions based on deeply held
principles that they believe should apply to everyone, no matter the circumstances. For instance,
consider a person at this stage who strongly believes in the principle of human dignity and equality. If
they witness a situation where a law or societal norm discriminates against a certain group of people,
they may feel compelled to take action against it, even if it means breaking the law. Let's say there's a
law that treats people from different races unfairly. In this stage, the individual might protest or work
to change that law because they believe in the universal principle of equality, which, to them, is more
important than following an unjust rule. So, at Stage 6, individuals prioritize fundamental ethical
principles like justice and equality above all else, even if it means challenging the laws set by
authorities.
 Individuals at this stage argue for Heinz's actions based on universal ethical principles that
transcend societal laws. They might argue that Heinz has a moral obligation to save his
wife's life, and this duty is more fundamental than any particular law or rule.