Moral Dilemmas (2) by E.J. Lemmon

British philosopher E.J. Lemmon wrote a thought provoking view on moral dilemmas. Lemmon highlights three classes of moral dilemma which I think can be summarized as:

1. Simplest form

2. Dilemmatic in the full sense

3. Extreme moral dilemma

I

The first type of moral dilemma, Lemmon took seriously the “crisis” of moral dilemmas mentioned in my last piece “the dilemma of moral dilemmas” and it can be sense throughout his writings.

For him, there is no contradiction between “ought to” and “ought not” simply because it is not a will like “must” and “must not”. So I ought to close the window and I ought not to close the window at the same time because “ought” is not necessarily a word of will that will be followed by action.

We can see three different moral apparatus in existence:

1. Two from conflicting sources (obligation, duty or principle)

2. and one is our own moral outlook.

I think what he mean by the cause of moral dilemma is the result of inadequacy of moral outlook in oneself. Deprive of moral, one will encounter dilemma if given two conflicting sources. By sources it must mean obligation, duty and principle. Thus every time obligation conflict with principle—while each of them has their own moral demand that govern their fulfillment—moral dilemma arises as apparent in Platonic case.

Dilemma arises when we lack moral outlook (immoral?) in facing these conflicting sources. So it must be a waste of time to seek guidance from our own private ethical code when moral dilemma occurs simply because we lack the needed views.

It is important to note the dissimilarity of making 1) a decision in a moral dilemma situation and 2) resolving the moral dilemma itself.

When a person in a situation of moral dilemma, the decision he make, doesn’t necessarily mean that the moral dilemma is resolved. He might still feel the existence of the dilemma in himself although he already has decided which action he should take (a decision in a moral dilemma situation). If for any reason that he does not feel the dilemma anymore, it is because he has adapted or create a “new moral outlook” in him thus deprive the existence of the moral dilemma (resolving the moral dilemma itself).

The remarkable difference of this sort of moral dilemma was that in order to preserve moral dilemma, a person in that situation will always make a decision that is not morally related. Lemmon proposed “consideration of ends” as an exemplary solution. Thus one will decide which “end” the course of action will give the best result. This solution while solving and decide which course of action one should take doesn’t implicate moral at all.
It is interesting to note that if one failed to make a decision—is itself a decision. One cannot ‘solve’ moral dilemma by running away from it.

II

We have discussed sources which possess their own intrinsic moral demand. What about sources which has none or lack of it? The second class of moral dilemma is called “dilemmatic in the full sense” by Lemmon. Citing example from Sartre, it is a situation when we do not know the moral demand of our obligation, duty and principle. A young man doesn’t know whether principle requires him to fight for Free French thus avenging his brother death in war or duty requires him to stay with his mother. Any decision that he make will marks the changed in moral outlook thus his overall attitude similar to one changed preferences from conservative to liberal or from being religious to atheism. The adoption of a new morality by an agent is frequently associated with the confrontation of moral dilemma.

III

The third class is an extreme moral dilemma. Not only that the person doesn’t know what morality requires of him (as evident in the second class), he doesn’t even have the moral outlook for working it out. He cited moral dilemma that faced Chamberlain in the negotiation with Hitler as an example. The extreme moral dilemma can require us to create new moral outlook. One of consideration in creating a new moral outlook is the desire to be true to oneself.

This type of moral dilemma is:

1. Easier—he know for sure that he need a some basic moral rethinking 

2. Harder—basic moral rethinking is harder work than working with existing moral principle.

Conclusion…

E.J. Lemmon cited two things that he would like to see to be done:

1. detailed breakdown of different kind of difficult moral situations. 

2. Discussion that can resolve moral dilemmas.

This can help distinguish bad and good moral reason for making moral decision