Do all moral dilemmas arise when two different duties are compared

Wittgenstein

Case 1
Consider a lawyer who is the best one in the town.He receives the case of a murderer who confesses to him about the crime.Should he take the case and save the murderer from facing any legal charges or should he refuse to take his case.If he refuses, this will in the extreme case cause the alleged culprit to go through an unfair trial without a lawyer, ( consider every lawyer should follow that if you think it is the right thing to do ).Hence the other option people give is ,the lawyer should take the case but intentionally lose it but this can be regarded as the lawyer giving up his duty and giving preference to performing the duty of a common citizen ( to not helping the murderer).Which duty is more important?
Our social framework consist of series of duties which everyone acknowledges and performs to remain moral and civilized in a society, hence if we argue abandoning one duty in favour of another, we will eventually end up destroying the system totally.Secondly in this case, the lawyer is not at fault for helping the murderer, since the judge is the final executioner, on top of that once the crime has been committed, we cannot regard the external help after the crime to be morally equivalent to help before or during the time when the crime was committed.We have different identities and each identity carries duties.
We can identify the standards used across various cultures and geographical areas.

Case 2.
In the similar manner, we can perfectly imagine a doctor curing a murderer and in both cases it is acceptable in the modern society.
BUT, I believe the answers to such questions are always different due to different weighing standards used when comparing moral duties.We can never argue about morality outside the standards and arguing about which standard is better is absurd.Hence moral dilemmas are similar to logical dilemmas, they do not exist in a standard frame of reference.

3rdClassCitizen

There is an assumption that a verdict of not guilty is always possible, if the lawyer is good enough. They can not suppress damning evidence.
In this case, a good lawyer would try to gain sympathy and get life instead of death, or possibly a lighter sentence.

3rdClassCitizen

Not usually suppress evidence, except in the movies and TV.

Judaka

Wouldn't it be a moral dilemma when duty conflicts with anything? Thus creating the dilemma of whether to or not to perform the duty or obligation?

3rdClassCitizen

Yes, but if defense lawyers only put effort sometimes, then more innocent people will be denied a fair shake in court.
Is it an aberration that those standing trial for their crimes are supposed to lie and say that they are not guilty?
They are supposed to perpetrate others lies to convolude truth and dodge justice. It is sadly the only fair way to level the playing field, when circumstancial evidence can result in prosecution.

ModernCandide

If all duties and moral standards had the same code in all professions and in life there would be no need to compare "apples and oranges". But to answer the primary question ethically the honest lawyer should recuse himself if the defendant had confessed. Morally is another question which cannot be answered. Ethics is black and white. Morals has unimaginable combinations of truths

Wittgenstein

↪ModernCandide

I think this is a very important observation which you have made, i.e distinguishing morality and ethics.

Morals are the social, cultural and religious beliefs or values of an individual or group which tells us what is right or wrong. They are the rules and standards made by the society or culture which is to be followed by us while deciding what is right.

Ethics work as a guiding principle as to decide what is good or bad. They are the standards which govern the life of a person. Ethics is also known as moral philosophy. Some ethical principles are

I think we should be concerned with ethics since they are generally more difficult, abstract and uniform over different societies.
I think it would be better if we clear up what we mean by each of these terms to avoid mixing them up.

. Morals has unimaginable combinations of truths

.
I disagree with this statement.I do not believe that moral statements to be proposition as we cannot apply truth value condition to them such as true or false, for example "murder is wrong" expresses either an attitude or a custom but we cannot regard the statement as true.I would regard it is an emotion, similar to statements like "I said am angry".This theory or idea is called emotivism.I believe you would have seen it somewhere.

Wittgenstein

↪Judaka

I would disagree since duties can be confronted by other constraints such as health,finance,weather etc.
It is really rare to have a moral dilemma from these obstacles.
I actually wanted to know why moral dilemma exist and how can we clarify about them.

Wittgenstein

↪3rdClassCitizen

I think our discussion will verge on civil laws here, the main argument against that would take the form of slippery slope argument.We cannot allow people to take laws into their hands and simultaneously be the judge and the executioner.This opens the door to more harm than good.

Terrapin Station

via Imgflip Meme Generator

Terrapin Station

Seriously, though, wouldn't this be an issue of whether there are moral stances that someone couldn't frame as a "duty" (if they wanted to frame everything as a duty)?

Harry Hindu

I wouldn't frame it as a "duty". Thinking in terms of "goals" seems like a more accurate term to use here.
Moral dilemmas exist because we all have individual goals that come into conflict. Moral dilemmas arise when an individual's goals come into conflict with another individual's goals, or a group's goals. Do the rights of minorities trump the rights of the larger group? Does my individual rights trump your individual rights? Who decides? The dilemma only exists if we see all individuals and groups as equals. If everyone is equal, then what do we do when our goals come into conflict?

Wittgenstein

↪Terrapin Station

The closest Kant got to it was distinguishing duties as
between perfect and imperfect duties. A perfect duty, such as the duty not to lie, always holds true; an imperfect duty, such as the duty to give to charity, can be made flexible and applied in particular time and place.
We can talk about the " perfect " duties, I think this is a weak point.

Wittgenstein

↪Harry Hindu

Really interesting. But we will have trouble obtaining universal moral values , for example ( taking away an innocent life is evil ) as we can argue the goals of a certain individual require that.Consider the case when armies meet in the battlefield, every soldier is innocent but suddenly the duty of a soilder takes precedence over all other duties.But if we were to take different goals, we will have great trouble justifying which goal is better.

Terrapin Station

↪Wittgenstein

So if someone who wants to can easily interpret all moral stances as duties, then why would it be worth pointing out--under that interpretational umbrella--that moral dilemmas arise when duties are compared/in conflict, etc.?

tim wood

Which duty is more important? — Wittgenstein

Neither, Neither are duties, and each is based in a profound and disturbing lack of basic understanding of what justice is about, in the US and probably most western countries. And it can stand as a caution and warning against "moralizing" from ignorance.

Wittgenstein

↪tim wood

What do you consider as duties ?
Well can you illuminate us about justice in the context of case 1 ?

Wittgenstein

↪Terrapin Station

Simply because it emphasizes the act rather then the consequence.It is different from consequentialism.
I'm just discussing an aspect of Kantian ethics which has clearly shaped our society, nothing new or funny.
The main topic which usually follows the discussion of duty/obligation is the rules which have to followed when considering a conflict.

tim wood

What do you consider as duties ?
Well can you illuminate us about justice in the context of case 1 ? — Wittgenstein

I try to understand duties in Kantian terms. Hmm. Clarification: I accept that there are things I ought/ought not to do. I try to understand what those things are and why they are. And then I try to live and act in accord(ance) with those things.

In your first example, it's all about justice, not this malefactor or that lawyer. The defense lawyer owes to justice the best defense he can provide. That's his duty and his job. Analogously it's a surgeon's business and duty to slice his patients open. Or a mechanic's to take your car apart. Asking if it's moral, then, is clearly in the context of the provision of medical, mechanical or any other professional services a nonsense, even a stupid, question.

Do such people get to chose their clients? Both in principle and practice, no.

Wittgenstein

↪tim wood

: I accept that there are things I ought/ought not to do. I try to understand what those things are and why they are. And then I try to live and act in accord(ance) with those things.

Well you are pretty close to kantian except Kant wants an individual to prioritize and perform his duties considering the hypothesis if everyone was to do the same.Well in your case, you are in fact making a moral choice when you consider yourself to be just performing a job.

In your first example, it's all about justice, not this malefactor or that lawyer. The defense lawyer owes to justice the best defense he can provide. That's his duty and his job. Analogously it's a surgeon's business and duty to slice his patients open. Or a mechanic's to take your car apart.

Well this isn't the first time l have asked this question, maybe in other variant forms.A lot of the people were concerned and would refrain from performing the job in such sensitive cases. Despite calling the question nonsensical, you have answered it, or even taken a certain stance, i.e you have given priority over the duty of a lawyer, which you didn't argue for.I actually did argue for it and l would favour your point of view but you cannot term the question as nonsense.You can call it stupid but seriously this is the attitude of the general public towards philosophy.If you ever ask someone at random in the street, "Is killing wrong ?", they wouldn't take you seriously.

Terrapin Station

↪Wittgenstein

So there are moral stances that someone couldn't interpret as duty-oriented if they wanted to?

Wittgenstein

↪tim wood

So there are moral stances that someone couldn't interpret as duty-oriented if they wanted to?

I would not consider them moral stances, but if someone else wants to, they can but they need to show how a moral stance is not duty oriented.
Could you provide an example ?

Terrapin Station

↪Wittgenstein

I wouldn't say it's necessarily the case that any moral stance either is or isn't duty-oriented. It would just be a matter of how the individual in question is thinking about it.

Wittgenstein

↪Terrapin Station

Well l kind of agree and disagree with you, I can see people not having any regards for a moral obligation and in that sense, they obviously don't view it as a duty.
But nevertheless the importance of duty remains, can you imagine someone arguing in a court and telling the judge,
" it wasn't my duty to hand over the wanted criminal that was living in my basement " It would not be accepted and practically the society imposes moral obligations on you.

Terrapin Station

↪Wittgenstein

Well, definitely people can have an opinion that you have moral duties that you don't think of as duties. That doesn't make those folks right, though, just because they think that or just because there's a consensus about it.

Wittgenstein

↪Terrapin Station

I agree with everything but I was advocating,

just because they think that or just because there's a consensus about it.

Well can l go a little further and say that many laws in the world, particularly those relating to sentencing spies involved in espionage to death are immoral despite the general consensus. Let's suppose l take all the countries that approve death penalty for murderers and they rely on consensus in the society, can l call it immoral.
It is easy to argue against consensus when we consider the atrocious holocaust in nazi Germany but we must remember that, we can reverse this argument and apply it to reasonable ideas reached by consensus over centuries of social evolution, such as slavery being bad.

tim wood

Well you are pretty close to kantian except Kant wants an individual to prioritize and perform his duties considering the hypothesis if everyone was to do the same.Well in your case, you are in fact making a moral choice when you consider yourself to be just performing a job. — Wittgenstein

If only it were that simple. The lawyer is not making a moral decision. He has always already studied, learned, and accepted his community's understanding of justice and how it works.

Perhaps this: we all have desires. Duty is apart from desires. You may even have a desire to not perform as duty requires. But it turns out that, usually, duty provides the greater reward - unless you're a member of the SS.

Wittgenstein

↪tim wood

He has always already studied, learned, and accepted his community's understanding of justice and how it works.

Well just because there is a consensus in the community regarding it, does not follow that there is no moral obligation on an individual.Can you say the same on the nazi leaders who used the exact same arguement in the international court, that "we were following orders " .It is not related to this case but you can see the community's understanding failings.Most people do not have to make such decisions and I don't think every lawyer would be willing to defend a ted bundy or a war criminal.The community isn't only the government, it is the people too,
People really don't think of such tacky situations when they imagine lawyers.

Perhaps this: we all have desires. Duty is apart from desires. You may even have a desire to not perform as duty requires. But it turns out that, usually, duty provides the greater reward - unless you're a member of the SS

I am considering the unusual cases.But we are not talking about leaving a duty but favouring one over another

tim wood

↪Wittgenstein

I haven't been clear. My bad. It's reason that rules - in the way laid out by Kant. His the last word? Probably not, but it's a start: it's the start. No opinion, no "feeling," no consensus. Instead, reason, as best it can be developed

Nancy38

There is a moral dilemma in positions such as doctor, lawyer, etc. But you need to understand that these people have taken an oath to help ANYONE, be it a priest or a murderer. The question of the ethical dilemma is too philosophical, and it is challenging to give an unambiguous answer to it. Therefore, I advise you to resort to the resource https://studydriver.com/ethical-dilemma-essay/ for a more detailed study of the issue. By the way, one of the articles discusses a case of an ethical dilemma in healthcare.

Do all moral dilemmas arise when two different duties are compared

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions