Living with Moral Dilemmas
By Jon Deisher, PP
Anchorage Rotary, D5010

In view of recent incendiary topics and controversial world events, let me try something risky. We often have sensitive subjects arise in our international web-serve exchanges. Many of them are related to core values, controversies of the day, beliefs in the “nature of things” and so forth. Often, both obviously and not, the subjects contain “moral dilemmas.” How do we as individuals approach dilemmas of a “moral nature?” When confronted with dilemmas concerned with the nature of “right and wrong,"“good and bad," or "internal codes of proper human deportment," what do we do? Apply reason? Intimidation? Traditional teachings? Moral dilemmas have divided people for centuries and have probably been responsible for more death and destruction than disease.

Consider the statements below. The point of presenting them is more the process of how they are resolved or addressed than the resolutions or results themselves. Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” The idea here is to promote such examination. Sometimes the form of posing a statement betrays the poser’s bias. Please make no such inference here. I have my responses, of course. You will have yours. Likely we will differ on more than one. The statements are presented to elicit our respective answers and thought processes, not to reveal my own or elicit confessions for yours. The idea is simply to promote thought about morality and values and how we resolve irresolvable differences between them.

The statements are purposely posed for their difficulty, or controversy ... some are more difficult than they appear. Many more are possible and we see them everyday. In Rotary, due to our multiplicity of people, cultures, values, languages, sensitivities, assumptions and beliefs, we encounter these kinds of issues daily, not only in the world in which we offer our service, but also among and between ourselves. The point is not persuasion or convincing others to accept our views, but rather of understanding those categorically different from our own. As we review the statements, first notice your own response: Do you agree, or not? How? Why? Which ever our individual responses are, can we cogently describe the opposing point of view and how or why one might disagree with us? Then, anticipate how one different from us might respond.

Here they are, from various sources. Give each a few moments of reflection:

1. . The future is written and pre-determined by destiny.
2. . Choices are not permanent. Having made a decision, one can always go back and reconsider.
3. . The genocidal holocaust in central Europe preceding and during World War Two is a historical fact.
4. . To kill a human being, including euthanasia, suicide and acts of war, is always wrong.
5. . To practice birth control, have abortions and manage her own fecundity is a woman's sole, personal and exclusive right.
6. . One's right to do as one wishes with one's own body is irrevocable.
7. . Objective truth based on matters of fact does not exist and is subject to the context of culture, language, time and society.
8. . The values and cultural momentum of society generate morality. Therefore, given the vast number of cultures and associated values, morality is relative.
9. . Marriage between one man and one woman is sacred, based on religious teaching, tradition, and what is best for the stability of society.
10. . The existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, compassionate God is obvious and irrefutable.
11. . War in defense of freedom and ones national interest is always justified.
12. . The acts and decisions of lawfully constituted government officials are to be accepted and obeyed without question.
13. . Skin colour is a reliable baseline to determine character, capability and intellect.

These are not just trifling exercises. They are real and we live them everyday. They are in the news, on the internet, in discussions with neighbors, in board rooms, within our clubs and organizations, wherever we are.

Having reviewed and considered the statements and having also anticipated positions opposite to our own, likely an awareness dawns that strong and cogent arguements can be taken on either side, sometimes on several sides. What are the implications for a "standard of morality" or a set of "common or shared values" as a result? Is a "“middle ground" possible? Do we know of instances where we might espouse one, or more, of the inherent value(s) in public and behave differently from them in private? What are the moral implications when we, or others, do that?

For most of us, the strength and intensity with which we hold positions varies with each moral issue. To what extent and expense (in the broadest meaning of “expense”) would we respectively go or accept in defense of our own, or in opposition to others’, positions? How can those with irreconcilable moral and/or values differences peacefully co-exist? Many of these questions are foundational and have resulted in catastrophic events for zealous advocates. I would not have us go there. However, they are the grist for the conversational mill of mature and reasoned discussion among friends, particularly Rotarians.

The resolutions of the dilemmas here are not as important as the process of thinking about them. Should they generate a string, or strings, of conversation(s), it is my hope that such a string(s) follow(s) more our understanding the world-views and cultures of others rather than self-righteous advocating for, or convincing others of, our own. Having said that, no response at all is acceptable (some dilemmas are irresolvable!) so long as a sparkle of thinking is generated ... sometimes such a sparkle is private and perhaps best kept that way. Probably none of these statements are topics for our common ROTI group-serve list. However, as we read them, did one or more of them stimulate the rising of hackles in the background? Did our awareness of our own responses, and anticipation of others’, make us more sensitive and responsive to our fellows on the list, in our community, among our international relations?

I hope so.