Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Moral Dilemmas

I am going to be writing a paper during the next week describing my position with respect to moral dilemmas.  When I am done I will post it on here as fair game for whatever shots anybody wants to take at it :)  But until then, I thought I would post on here the three basic positions with respect to moral dilemmas and see which everybody identifies with, or if anybody has a position besides the three I describe.  First, for the sake of clarity, here is how we will define a moral dilemma:
  • A moral dilemma is a situation in which there appears to be, or is, a conflict between two or more moral absolutes/norms that allow no exceptions.  Simply put, a moral dilemma is a lose/lose situation, where we will be unable to fulfill one of God's commands no matter what our choice.
Here are the three positions:
  1. Non-Conflicting Absolutism - maintains that absolute moral norms never do indeed conflict.  Put another way, we will never face a situation where we have no choice but to sin, and therefore moral dilemmas do not exist.
  2. Ideal Absolutism - maintains that absolute norms, ideally speaking (that is, in a world without sin), never conflict.  But actually speaking (that is, in our world with its sin), absolute moral norms do indeed conflict.  Basically, we are left with choosing the lesser of two evils, with either result being sin.
  3. Hierarchicalism, or Graded Absolutism - maintains that absolute moral norms do indeed conflict; moral dilemmas do exist, and in these the greater moral norm (according to a hierarchy of moral absolutes) is to receive precedence.  Basically, we are left with choosing the greater of two goods, and this position argues that doing the greater good absolves one of their lesser duty they are unable to perform.

4 comments:

DK said...

Bonhoeffers plot to kill Hitler could be a good example of "graded absolutism" in contrast to Martin Luther King Jr's staunch stance on non-violence. Was Bonhoeffers actions sinful? Should MLK Jr used violence?

Matthew Scott said...

I think that if there is a moral dilemma, there must be a higher purpose in God giving us the dilemma. Take Adam and Eve. They were presented with seemingly conflicting commandments: Don't eat the fruit and multiply and replenish the earth (which they couldn't do until after the fall. See Genesis 1:28 and 2:17). Maybe God wanted them to have the opportunity to exercise their agency, and that they would be able to grow and progress by making the decision. So when there is a conflict, maybe the correct decision is that which will bring us closest to God and allow us to follow the plan he has outlined for us in the scriptures. Adam and Eve made the decision that would allow the fall, which they probably understood was necessary for their progression, but God allowed them to choose.
Of the three options, I think I would believe the most in Hierarchicalism. And if indeed God does present us with seemingly conflicting choices, there must be a purpose and there must be a way (the gift of His Son) to overcome the seeming contradiction. Only then can God be both just and merciful.

Sarah said...

How does God's command to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil conflict with his command to multiply and subdue the earth?
God is perfect and commands us to be perfect (Matthew 5:48). Therefore, he can't give us a command where sin is an acceptable option. He promises to not let us be tempted beyond what we can bear but to give us a way out of temptation- to avoid sin (1 Corinthians 10:13).
I believe that there is no such thing as a moral dilemma (Non-Conflicting Absolutism).

Steven Knepprath said...

See my latest post for the paper I wrote on this topic.