Talk:Ethical dilemma

message: Marriage. The rewards for staying married to a rational person grow each year until they become irriplaceable. You are not only financially invested in the person you are married to and his or her pension, but no one else shares your ever-deeper past, your family and children, or understands your needs, weaknesses and fears. Yet the drive to risk it all on an ocassional affair is nearly impossible to overcome, and can provide some of the greatest joy in life—if you don't fall seriously in love. What to do? Mexican women, who will almost certainly be killed by their husbands for cheating, are as discrete as any Mosad agent. (See, for example, Distant Neighbors by Alan Riding.) Where the punishment is more unpredictable, people are a bit uncoordinated but risk losing less. However, this game of balancing choices becomes a crisis during the decade of "last chances," from approximately age 45 to 55. The risk of a long-term, irredemable mistake is at its maximum during this time, and only by knowing what is at stake is imperative but impossible. It's a paradox everyone shares.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.94.76 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's a paradox everyone shares"... even those who never marry 2.98.58.222 (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A real life example 

message: "Design of a voting system other electoral reform, a criminal justice system, or other high-stakes adversarial process for dispute resolution will almost always reflect the deep persistent struggles involved. However, no amount of good intent and hard work can undo a bad role structure:"
It seems to come from nowhere and mean nothing coherent with the preceding (or indeed following) text, though perhaps I just missed something.  —Preceding unsigned comment. added by 217.235.74.134 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: I'm not a philosopher. Hell, I'm at tech school, the closest I'll come to logic is computer programming. The beginning of the article mentions a contrast involving "love your neighbor", but I just don't see the paradox. It can't be argued "Love thy neighbor for all eternity" because its inherent the loving human will die eventually. The paradox doesn't appear between loving your neighbor and self-defense because that assumes you can avoid death forever, which isn't possible.
I'm not sure if that makes sense outside of my head.
Liastnir 03:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What paradox? 

message: I hoped the article might list some classic examples, along the lines of "Sophie's Choice", family of four with a lifeboat for three, etc.  I believe there are some ethical dilemas regularly used in military training and psychological research.  If anyone is familiar with these a list would benefit the article greatly, I believe. I'm not really qualified to make such a list myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.239.48.141 (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more examles please 

message: This whole section appears to be bizarre and unsupported... if anyone agrees can they flag or remove it or something. Didn't want to delete the whole thing without getting a second opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.95.181 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roles within structures 

message: I am hugely confused as to why a search for moral dilemma redirects to an article named ethical dilemna. Morality and ethics are not the same thing; morality is a personal code of conduct and ethics is a code provided by a group of which you are a part. In the case of an ethical dilemna the individual always has the option to leave the group thus absolving them of any responsibility for the paradoxical situation or its consequences. In a moral dilemna there is no get out of jail free card and the individual has to choose one course of action or the other. However, this article seems to treat the two words as though they were synonymous: Example, "in moral philosophy, paradox often plays a central role in ethics debates." which is pretty much gibberish from my perspective. Cottonshirtτ 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugely confused 

message: Removed 2nd sentence, as it expressed merely Gilman's opinion as to what changes are needed in law enforcement training.  As such it might belong later in the article, but not in the introduction.  For similar reasons I removed the sentence about terconduct (a typo?) and sankat.  These unfamiliar terms should be explained, and in any case would belong later in the article, e.g. in a section on moral dilemmas in Hindu military philosophy.CharlesHBennett (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: — Assignment last updated by Turnj (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory and Frameworks Fall 2022

message: The article’s lead section is quite strong. It provides a concise overview of definitions of the moral dilemma as well as the categories of ethical problems and the primary philosophical argument about its existence. The table of contents and the lead part of the article are both highly consistent with each other. It is a strong overview for the subsequent sections because neither it has rushed into details nor has it addressed any one section excessively.
Each significant component of the theory has its own section, which is laid out in a logical, understandable way. The article presents a balanced analysis of the controversy surrounding the existence of ethical dilemmas. Arguments on both sides are roughly the same length. To achieve neutrality across points of view, the authors present the counterarguments alongside each pro- or anti-existence argument. It does not attempt to convince the audience to believe in one side. Besides, all of the sources cited in the article are reliable.
The article could use the following improvements:
In the section on arguments in favor of the existence of ethical dilemmas, statements like “it may become apparent in some of these examples that our initial intuitions misled us and that the case in question is not a genuine dilemma after all” seem reluctant to describe the pro-existence argument. It might be clearer if it began with “One way to argue for this claim is to categorize them as epistemic ethical dilemmas...” and then went on to explain the “examples that our initial intuitions misled us” later. By putting the pro-existence argument first and then going over the potential counterarguments, it presents the arguments more obviously.
The article contains a few ambiguous phrases like “some examples” and “somehow”, among others. It may simply erase them or raise the clearance to more precisely indicate their reference.
ElinorSun (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  and thanks for your detailed and helpful feedback. You are right that the first paragraph of the subsection "Arguments in favor" needs some work. I've followed your suggestion in spirit if not in letter by trying to clarify the structure of the argument and the response. It is still not the most accessible paragraph so please let me know if these changes helped. I've tried to address some of the vague expressions. In some cases, like for the sentence "But some philosophers have argued that this requirement is too weak, that the moral theory should be able to provide guidance in any situation.", the source itself is vague on who exactly these philosophers are (at least on a short look). Please let me know if you have further ideas on how the article could be improved. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw that this article (and probably ElinorSun's peer review) is part of the Wiki Education assignment so I hope I didn't interfere with your process. If the main point of the assignment is to improve the article: a short explanation of the trolley problem in the section Ethical dilemma#Examples would be a helpful addition. For reliable sources, see , , , and . This could be combined with adding an image of the trolley problem since the article lacks images so far. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review from Elinor