Moral Dilemma

When a conflict between moral requirements or obligations occurs, and a person thereby has reasons to perform two different actions, but the performance of both actions is impossible, the situation is referred to as a moral dilemma.

It is sometimes the case that ‘all things considered’ one course of action – that is, acting in accordance with one of the two obligations – clearly overrides the other.  In this case, what one takes to be the stronger, or more serious, obligation is regarded as the right choice.

In other cases, however, the right course of action in a moral dilemma is far less obvious.  Consider, for example, a case offered by the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre.

A young French man is faced with a dilemma after the death of his older brother at the hands of Nazi Germany.   The young man feels a sense of duty to avenge his brother’s death, and to defend his country against the invading Germans.  However, he also feels another sense of duty – a duty to his mother.  The young man realizes that the death of his older brother now leaves him as his mother’s only son.  Moreover, his mother lives with him, and he is responsible for taking care of her in her old age.

Thus, the young man has two conflicting obligations – one to his brother and country and another to his mother – and meeting the requirements of one obligation thereby precludes him from meeting the requirements of the other.  The young man can either stay with, and take care of, his mother or he can join the fight against the Germans, but he cannot do both.

In this case it is unclear which of the obligations is the more serious of the two, and part of the difficulty is that the consequences of acting in one way rather than the other are unknown.   What is certain, however, is that one of the obligations will be left unfulfilled.