Some philosophical distinctions

Truth and validity

There are two ways our reasoning can go
wrong.
:One is when our reasoning is based on
incorrect data.
:The other is when our reasoning itself is
faulty.
Philosophers capture this distinction in
the terms of ‘truth’ and ‘validity’.
 .
• A statement is true when it accurately depicts
reality.
• Validity, on the other hand, is concerned only
with the structure of the reasoning.
• All of our statement may be false, but the
reasoning is correct. Such a mode of thinking
would be valid, even though based on false
data.
 Dilemmas
• It is not a dilemma to confront choices. A
dilemma occurs when we face two choices,
both of which lead to less than desirable
consequences.
• For example, an executive (whose business
faces a deteriorating bottom line) is in dilemma
if (s)he reasons that there are only two choices:
either adopt an illegal strategy and risk going to
jail, or do nothing and risk going bankrupt.
• One way out of a dilemma is to search for a
third choice e.g., to find a new product line ,
new source of funding , improved sales
techniques, or simply refuse to accept one of
the options.
• 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[ e.g., ordering choice between Tea or coffee].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:
• 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”.
• Moral dilemmas are just some of the introductory topics in the course ethics. For a
discussion on the meaning and types of ethics, please see
http://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/05/13/ethics/. For more on the meaning of
ethics, see
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/what-is-ethics/.
•
 Dialectical Reasoning
• Another strategy of philosophical analysis is dialectical
reasoning.
• Dialectical reasoning is attempting to discover the truth
about something by working once way through a series
of partial truths.
: It starts with a claim or a proposal. Submit it to
rigorous testing and analysis. Retain what survives but
modify the claim in light of the criticism. Then start the
whole process over again. Repeat the process as much
as possible until you reach the insight you seek. Plato
and Hegel brought this method to prominence.
 How to use case studies
• Rather than providing a problem based analysis,
case studies provide us with accounts of ethically
commendable as well as not commendable
corporate behaviors.
• Case studies allow readers to insert themselves
into the narrative and raise various types (‘what if’
types) of questions.
• Another approach is to ask what events could
have occurred that would have altered the
outcomes described in the case.
• Here are some of the questions that can be
asked as one works through a case:
(i) What are the ethical issues raised by this
series of events?
(ii)How did this situation develop from
manager’s point view? How did the situation
develop from your point of view, as an outside
observer?
(iii) What actions could management have taken
to bring about a different outcome than the
one described here?
(iv) How would you generalize from this case in
order to develop an overall approach to
dealing with issues similar to the ones raised
here?
(v) As you analyze the situation, what were the
critical decision points?
• There are other themes raised by each case.
The key point is that cases are meant to bring
about discussion. Discussion clarifies our
thinking and help us adjusting our positions
according to strength of arguments and
counterarguments.