The case to be analyzed is devoted to an ethical dilemma involving a social worker. Since social workers interact with people and even the whole communities on a daily basis (while having to stay impartial and fair at the same time), they often have to encounter ethical dilemmas. Before discussing the case, it will be helpful to provide a definition of the notion. An ethical dilemma is a complex situation that has three major characteristics:  1. Choice. An agent has to pick the course of action that is supposed to be the most objective, logical, and beneficial.  2. More than one solution. An ethical dilemma is not a life-or-death situation; it allows choosing from relatively equal options.  3. No ideal solution. There is no possible option that would not harm any of the stakeholders (Corey, Corey, & Callanan, 2015). In the case under analysis, all three conditions are met. As a social worker, I have to decide whether to support the community group, which is unanimously opposed to the decision of the housing authorities to rent to the local mental health department to establish a group home, or the mentally sick, who need residence, of which I am well aware. Voicing my opinion directly would not be a good solution to the problem. It may create an adverse attitude on behalf of the group and make people perceive me as their enemy. The Code of Ethics specifically stresses the importance of human relationships for a social worker. Dealing with a community, a social worker must do his/her utmost to build mutual trust with the group since otherwise, interaction is unlikely to be effective (Reamer, 2013). However, social workers should also promote social justice and the worth of each person, which implies that I cannot ignore the needs of the mentally sick; otherwise, the emotional health of the community would be negatively affected (Corey et al., 2015). Although people for whom the new facility is meant cannot be considered full members of the society, they still have dignity and needs that are to be respected. That is why in this situation I would owe loyalty to mentally sick patients and prioritize their needs over the attitude of the community. Yet, I would also bear in mind that I have to serve the community as well as that their emotional response can be modified. I would try to restrain from emotions myself and propose the group to discuss the pros and cons of the situation. This would help me understand what basic objections they have to the new facility. Knowing their reasons would make it easier for me to choose a proper strategy for making them change their minds. I would offer them a new perspective on the issue, placing a particular emphasis on community needs. I believe that it would not be wrong in this situation to call for their compassion, either. For the next group meeting, I would present them with the results of my research concerning the occurrence of mental illnesses in the region and draw group attention to the numbers and facts in order to make them realize that this misery may come to every house. Making the situation more personal for each member of the group would appeal to them directly. As a result, the group presentation and its subsequent discussion would facilitate