Ethical/ moral dilemma refers to a severe condition often concerning an apparent mental conflict amid moral necessities in which to follow one would consequence in disobeying another. At present, I am facing a friendship dilemma involving four parties, Jeremy, Anthony, Anthony’s wife, and me. I am employing the best way possible to solve it. Being faced with a friendship dilemma is an issue that causes a severe headache. Jeremy and Anthony are among my list of friends. Jeremy had met and started dating Monique, a beautiful French woman from Nice. According to Jeremy, his relationship with Monique is a long-term one. A few days ago I noted that Monique is engaged to Anthony for three years and together they have a son who seems unknown to Jeremy. My decision is whether to tell Jeremy that Monique is married to Anthony when I meet with Jeremy. Anthony has doubted his wife Monique is having an affair and since we have been sharing many friends and contacts, he asked me if I have heard about the relationship.
The value at stake is the sense that I do not know to who I owe greater friendship. The present conflicting result my action can end up bringing are, no matter who I tell, the possibility is that might end up heart-breaking the other partner or all of them will be heartbroken The truth about my assumption about keeping quiet hoping that this knowledge will never be exposed is unknown. My aim after resolving the issue is that everybody will remain happy as before the issue unfolded. It is because I want my act will be dependent on facts about maximizing the involved parties’ well-being. Also, I need to perform in the best way possible that will bring the maximum amount of welfare, and well-being is assumed as closely associated with happiness.
Utilitarianism ethical theory will be used to help me solve the dilemma. It is because the method is ethically associated with the rightness and wrongness of acts depending on the facts resulting from maximizing the well-being of the involved parties. The theory is greatly related to the maximum potential amount of well-being associated with happiness. The method is significantly defined by five characteristics; consequentialism, individualism, welfare, aggregation, and maximization. Also as a friend, I will be concerned with the consequences that will result from the dilemma. Both good and bad will be present after solving the dilemma, in that Anthony might or might not lose Monique to Jeremy. Also maintaining personality, in this case, will be essential in coming up with a suitable solution that will be considered right to uphold healthy relationships among the welfare.
Contrasting views include ones on which the correctness or wrongness of acts depends, partially or wholly, on their conventionality to ethical instructions whose content is resolute by facts around things other than the consequences associated with the action.
The welfare view of goodness and badness of penalties, or conditions of affairs, depends wholly on facts about well-being. It is from time to time characterized regarding contentment instead of welfare, and it is acceptable as long as happiness is understood broadly, along with the lines of thriving in one’s life, purely not mental states. Divergent views are one’s which the goodness and badness of the consequences vary partially or wholly on proofs about situations other than the state of welfare. Utilitarianism when dedicated to independence is discordant with contrasting views.
Aggregation is attributed to seeing that worth of a state of affairs is resolute by summing the values related to personalities in that state of affairs. The opposing view comprises the ones whose value of welfare is determined by imposing some other mathematical function on values related to the associated entities in the welfare. The difference of contrasting affairs from aggregation makes them incompatible with utilitarianism.
Maximization refers to the view that it is considered necessary for the value of welfare to be abundant as possible. It is considered the least controversial of the defining aspect of utilitarianism since there is usually thought to be petite to be said for contrasting views, such as the value of the state of matters being potentially small or when viewed not a substance of ethical significance.
The Theory with Best Solution
Between Kantianism and utilitarianism ethical theories, the Kantianism theory is relevant to help me solve the dilemma, and also it resonates with me well. Kant argues that morality is only imaginable in a society that possesses natural attributes of rationality and free will. It is evident in my dilemma that I possess free will and of expressing my dilemma to the involved people. Therefore, in this dilemma, no one can be taken responsible for actions lest that person is capable of understanding right or good. It is evident that Jeremy does not know if his actions toward Monique are right or wrong only because he does not understand whether Monique is engaged to Anthony or not.
What I Will Do And The Reason For Choosing This Account
I am planning to solve my dilemma by using of Kantianism account. I want this account because it’s the most efficient and effective. By utilizing the theory, to both Jeremy and Anthony regarding our friendship, I will utilize the universal principle that by doing what Jeremy did was not a pleasurable moment but it was the right thing to do when he did not understand the consequence. Therefore I will make both Jeremy and Anthony sit down, and we view all the implications resulting from the dilemma until Anthony retains his wife causing the least heartbreak to Jeremy because if Jeremy keeps Monique, Anthony’s son will suffer the most.
Advantages of Kantian Ethics
The morality in Kant’s is candid and is based on reasoning thus making it accessible to everyone. Also, duty is a measure of human understanding in Kant’s ethics. In this case, the molarity does not lie in intentions, consequences, or religious laws. It also outlines that molarity is attending to individuals’ duty and not just permitting feelings. It aims in treating everyone fairly and justly.
The people are perceived to generally possess the same thoughts about morality, and most people identify the idea of duty, and it is what is meant to be human. Kant views duty and inclination as different. Thus, ethical practice should be founded on reason and not independent emotion. Also, Kant also shows the distinction between preference and duty. The categorical imperative tells the right, and the wrong thus giving a clear sense of ethical guidelines. From intrinsic rightness comes the moral value of an action.
Critics Associated With Utilitarianism.
In utilitarianism, it is impossible for happiness and others that cannot be measured. Therefore measuring happiness is impossible, then a world like “happier” and “happiest” could possess no meaning. Also, it is characterized by impracticality which makes it difficult to apply. It is illustrated where we cannot calculate what is wrong and right as a result of the failure of the utility principle. It is also associated with distastefulness because it needs us to reason all kinds of thinking.
Cons, Flaws, and Negative Aspects of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is characterized by adverse complications. For instance, in my dilemma, Anthony is faced with a negative difficulty of what his wife is doing and thus if Jeremy. The theory is also subjective as we cannot tell what Monique is right or wrong about what she is doing. Also, it’s time-consuming and challenging since calculating the total utility for every action taken. It presents disputable situations where there is no one to decide good or bad; it is because no one recognizes who has the absolute right to say good and bad. Also, it promotes favoritism since it is hard for individuals to make practical decisions regarding loved ones.
Problems Associated With Kant’s Ethical Theory
All duties associated with Kant are faced with grave problems since all responsibilities are absolute and thus can’t help in solving conflicts of duty and this solving my friends’ dilemma by telling the truth would be difficult. Also, moral emotions are discounted, and lastly ignoring an action’s penalties, it is intentionally blind to act about an action that is not strict.
Negative aspects of making decisions and obeying only the categorical imperative.
Making decisions based on obeying only categorical imperative makes the decision to end on themselves while some terms as merely instrumental, thus they are treated as a thing with mere instrumental value. It leads to manipulation of decisions to make them easier and thus evades the truth.
In conclusion ethical dilemma is an issue that needs to be clearly understood to enable one to reach a viable solution. Though surrounded by many theories to assist a person, unknowingly a person can cause a hard time. It is certain that some are a time to consume, but they have advantages that greatly help in reaching a conclusion. The dynamic theories present to solve ethical dilemmas, though having the power of problem-solving, people might find them hard to understand and also very contradicting which further poses a problem to parties involved. It is nevertheless advisable to use ethical theories to solve ethical dilemmas.
Lee Bowie G. Twenty Questions “An Introduction to Philosophy.” 1988