One textbook example of ethical dilemma is of a bystander who watches an innocent man trying to escape from thugs intent on killing him. On being questioned by the thugs about the whereabouts of the innocent man, the bystander misleads them by pointing to some other direction as the route taken by the innocent man. Consider the following ways of looking at the bystander’s conduct.
What would be the most appropriate one?
1. The action of the bystander is correct.
2. The action of the bystander though appropriate from commonsense point of view violates a moral principle.
3. The action of the bystander is improper.
4. This is a moral quibble or puzzle not worth troubling about.
The first response is correct. In our discussion of Kantianism, we mentioned that Kant would convict the bystander of a moral lapse. Ross takes a different view here. This example shows a conflict between two norms: truth telling and beneficence or in simpler terms avoiding harm to others. Ross would say that in this situation beneficence will trump truth- telling. In other words, the moral agent will correctly see beneficence as the overriding virtue in this case.
Very few philosophers will accept that the bystander’s action violates any moral principle.
As we noted above, most thinkers will regard the third option as inappropriate. It is not in line with what philosophers call ‘the commonsense of humanity’. Ross has provided the theoretical justification for adopting the higher moral value when two such values clash in any situation.
The fourth response is off the mark. We should not (at least in theoretical studies) ignore any problem even if it seems purely imaginary or even eccentric. Progress in Ethics or in any other subject happens as a result of examination of various problems from a logical point of view. Even problems that seem to be devoid of substance should be logically scrutinized.
2. Principle of Promise-Keeping: We have to keepour promises in official, social andfamily life.In official businessor transactions,promisesare embodiedin contracts.Honouringlegally made contracts is an ethical norm for public organizations. But contracts are difficult legal instruments, and often lead to litigation on grounds of breach of conditions. Of course,there are certain conditions which may prevent a contracting party from fulfilling his obligations. These are in the nature of ‘Acts of God’ over which one has no control. A contractor may enter into a contract to build within a specified period an aqueduct for a canal to cross a river. But if unexpected floods interrupt his work, he has to be given extra time, in view of this ‘Act of God’, to complete the work.
¤ In situations of ordinary life, two points concerning promise-keeping are relevant; one is what constitutes a promise; and the other is when a moral agent will be justified in breaking a promise. One clear form of promise is a direct statement by someone that
he will do something. Suppose that X promises Y that he will pay his college fee for a year. If X later backs out, he will be clearly in breach. In commonsense terms, a promise made by one individual to another, induces the latter to embark on a course of action. If a promise is broken, the person who acts on that promise will suffer loss and embarrassment.
¤ ‘Keeping promises’ is a tenet which underlies the legal doctrine of estoppel. Suppose that in a matter B is led by A to believe that he will act in a particular way or will take a particular position. Based on it, B sets out on a course of action. Thereafter, looking only to his advantage, A takes a position different from the earlierposition he communicated to B. A cannot do it because of the doctrine of estoppel. Or he is estopped from doing it.
¤ In human relationships, many promises are implied or understood. Parents can be said to have made a promise to look after their children. Similarly, husbands have made implicit promises to takecare of theirwives; in fact,Hindumarriagevowsimposeexplicit duties on the husband. People have to keep promises unless they are physically or for other compelling reasons unable to do so.
3. Principle of not harming others: It is positively good if we help others. At a minimum, we should not harm others. Harm means both physical pain and mental trauma. The only exception to this rule is when harming others is the sole means of saving ourselves from danger. To put it differently, we can harm others in the process of self–defence.
4. Principle of Beneficence: This principle is another form of expressing the idea of altruism. ‘Good’ like ‘harm’ has both physical and psychological dimensions. The physical aspects of good include food, health and amenities of life. The psychological dimensions of good are security and happiness. There is one aspect which often causes confusion. Preventing others from coming to harm is an act of altruism. It does not fall under the principle which bars moral agents from harming others.
5. Principle of Autonomy: This is the freedom of individual human reason which Kant emphasized and which is part of Enlightenment movement. It means that men can lead their lives as they wish, provided that they do not in the process violate similar rights of others. This is another version of the democratic political value of individual freedom of action and speech. Further, as moral agents we have to permit people to make their own decisions and to live as they wish as long as they do not interfere with our exercise of our own rights.
¤ This freedom has two sides to it. First, when our actions alone are enough to enable us to pursue our interests, others are precluded from interfering with our actions —a right of non–interference. Secondly, in situations in which we need the help of others, as in the case of a chronic patient who needs the help of a skilled physician, we have a right to control the actions that others take for our benefit. The patient, for example, has a right to control which procedures the physician follows to treat the ailments.
6. Principle of Equality (Justice): This principle is a form of the general principle that all are equal in the eye of the law. This follows also from Kant’s dictum that moral rules
should be universally applicable. Here, it means that the standard according to which we treat any person is the same standard that we use to treat all other people.
It does not mean that everyone should be equally treated. People enter into different types of relationships with concomitant responsibilities and duties. We recognize this and treat people differently depending on the nature of our relationship with them. We will not treat our children like acquaintances we meet on a journey.
What the principle means is that law will treat similarly placed individuals similarly. Everyone, irrespective of theirbackground,should be treated according to thesamelegal standards.Ofcourse, the police and the courts will not treat convicted criminals and ordinary citizens alike; but the same legal standards will be applied regardless of who they are.
Ethical Dilemmas and Prima Facie Principles
One can use the six prima facie principles as guides to decide moral questions. In addition, these principles can also used to explicitly define a moral dilemma in terms of conflicting principles.