Lesson 63 of 69 in this sequence

91%

Not completed yet

Saved on this device only — not synced to an account yet.

Learning path

Step 63 of 69

Continue the sequence

ResumeReturn to this step ReviewRevisit the core idea RemediateGet repair practice Next stepChoose the next lesson manually

Completion

Review objectives and instruction
Complete the activity with manual learner confirmation
Answer every understanding-check item
Show completion feedback and reward only after the learner finishes the check

Progress

Step 63/69
15 content types
AI help source context available
Auto-advance blocked

Review objectives and instruction

AI help

Available only with source grounding, privacy limits, age controls, and measurement.

AI source context

Weighing Competing Duties in a Real Dilemma · How Moral Reasoning Works · moral dilemmas · competing obligations

Evidence: local lesson AI-help metadata only; source-grounding, privacy, age-safety, and measurement hooks do not prove real model quality, production telemetry, child AI approval, or AI tutor production readiness

Production AI readiness not claimed

AI source context

Assessment shape

Local lesson assessment shape is complete.

Local shape only; production answer-attempt telemetry, live ownership/RLS evidence, mastery interpretation, release, and production readiness are not claimed here.

Objectives: 5
Activity: Prompt ready
Quiz items: 4 items, 4 answer keys, 4 explanations
Reward: Completion reward ready

Assessment progress stays manual: do not auto-advance through uncertain answers, failed writes, consent, media, payment, learner choice, or AI-assisted checks.

Learning-loop evidence: Content-map contract only; persistence and production learner-progress writes require route/API evidence.

Manual policy: assessment, media, consent, payment, learner choice, failed writes, and AI-uncertain help stay under learner control.

Prerequisite: Complete or review Virtue Ethics: Character and Morality

AI guardrails

Privacy

Do not send raw child free text without consent
Use source excerpts and non-identifying progress state only
Asset is not registry-gated

Age safety

Apply learn audience controls before AI-help claims
Keep child learner AI paths behind guardian/product review evidence before readiness claims

Measurement

Log AI help usage by surface and asset slug
Evaluate answer quality against source-grounded rubric before production-readiness claims
Tie remediation prompts to completion, retry, or review outcomes

Local AI-help guardrails only; they do not prove guardian approval, production telemetry, model evaluation, release, deployment, or AI tutor production readiness.

Source and rights

Source path: koydo-app/scripts/curriculum-authoring
License: ai-generated-koydo
Attribution: Attribution decision needs owner review
AI provenance: claude-opus-4-8

Source review gates: attribution_missing

Local source evidence only; this does not prove publication rights, attribution approval, AI provenance clearance, release, deployment, or production readiness.

Route review

Current route: /library/learn/philosophy_ethics/en/lesson/moral-dilemma-tradeoffs
Route source: Fallback route needs owner canonical review
Candidate route: /library/learn/philosophy_ethics/en/lesson/moral-dilemma-tradeoffs

Local route evidence only; fallback candidates need owner-approved canonical route policy before route writes, production discoverability, or readiness claims.

Content gates: canonical_target_web_missing_uses_library_fallback

lessonslessonslesson objectivesmedia scenesdrillspractice setsquizzesfeedbackcharacterscitationsconcept mapsprogressresumereviewremediationnext steps

Weighing Competing Duties in a Real Dilemma

with Philo

Philo sits at a weathered wooden table in a lantern-lit study, holding a brass balance pan in each hand, a thoughtful frown on their face as notebooks and moral case files spill across the desk around them.

Explain what makes a situation a genuine moral dilemma rather than a simple right-versus-wrong choice.
Identify the two competing obligations in a given dilemma scenario.
Compare the moral weight of each obligation using at least two considerations.
Predict how a reasoned trade-off differs from guessing or following a feeling alone.
Explain why a well-reasoned decision in a dilemma can still be difficult and imperfect.

Key terms

genuine moral dilemma: a situation where two valid obligations conflict so honoring one shortchanges the other
prima facie duty: a duty that is binding unless a stronger conflicting duty overrides it in a specific situation
reasoned trade-off: weighing stakes, considering alternatives, and making a choice you can justify with reasons
moral residue: the real loss that remains because something valuable was sacrificed no matter what you chose

Dilemma Versus Discomfort

Not every hard feeling marks a moral dilemma. Feeling torn about reclaiming your own bicycle is discomfort, not a clash of duties, because you have no real obligation to let a friend keep it. A genuine dilemma requires two valid obligations that actually conflict — keeping a confidence versus preventing harm, for instance. The test is not how anxious you feel but whether honoring one duty truly forces you to violate another. Mistaking emotional difficulty for a dilemma is one of the most common errors in moral reasoning.

Reasoning Through the Conflict

When duties genuinely collide, you reason rather than guess. First weigh the stakes on each side, since a stinging broken promise is not equal to a life-altering harm. Second hunt for a third option that honors both duties, such as urging a friend to come clean before you act. Third ask whether you could justify your choice to a wise, fair person who cares about both values. This is what makes a trade-off reasoned rather than a coin flip, even though the result will feel imperfect.

Worked examples

Reason through the shoplifting-confidence dilemma your classmate created.

Name the two conflicting duties: keeping your promise of loyalty, and preventing harm to your classmate and others.
Weigh the stakes: a broken confidence stings, but your classmate risks serious, possibly life-affecting consequences.
Search for a third option that honors both, such as urging the classmate to come forward themselves first.
Test the remaining choice by asking whether you could justify it to someone wise and fair who values both loyalty and safety.

Answer: A reasoned conclusion is that preventing serious harm carries greater weight here, so the duty to protect overrides the promise — while acknowledging real moral residue, since loyalty was genuinely sacrificed.

Hi, I am Philo. Let me tell you about one of the trickiest moments in ethics — the genuine moral dilemma. Most choices in life have a clear right answer once you think them through. Should you lie to hurt someone's feelings for no reason? Obviously not. But a real dilemma is different. In a genuine moral dilemma, two VALID obligations pull against each other, and honoring one means shortchanging the other. Here is a classic example. Imagine your classmate confides in you that they have been shoplifting regularly and begs you not to tell anyone. You now face two real obligations: (1) keep your promise of loyalty to your classmate, and (2) prevent harm — both to your classmate, who risks serious consequences, and to others affected. Both matter. Neither is wrong to care about. That is what makes it a dilemma — not laziness, not confusion, but two genuine duties in conflict. Philosophers call these 'prima facie duties' — duties that are binding unless a stronger duty overrides them in this specific situation. 'Prima facie' (say: PRY-mah FAY-shuh) is Latin for 'at first glance.' Each duty looks binding on its own; the hard work is deciding which one wins here and why. So how do you reason through it? Ask three questions. First: How serious are the stakes on each side? A broken promise stings; your classmate risking a criminal record is life-affecting. Second: Are there any options that reduce the harm to both duties — like encouraging your classmate to come clean themselves before you act? Third: Which choice would you be able to justify to someone wise and fair who cares about both values? Your final decision will probably not feel perfect, because in a true dilemma, something real is lost no matter what you choose. That is okay. A reasoned trade-off — where you weigh the stakes, consider alternatives, and make a choice you can explain — is very different from just going with your gut or flipping a coin. Hard does not mean unanswerable. It means answerable with care.

Activity

Drag each card into the column where it best belongs: 'Simple Right-vs-Wrong Choice' or 'Genuine Moral Dilemma'.

Practice

Decide whether 'choosing between two friends' birthday parties on the same day' is a genuine dilemma or discomfort.

Pick a hard choice and name the two competing obligations, then weigh their stakes.

Common mistakes to avoid

Feeling torn makes it a dilemmaA genuine dilemma requires two valid obligations in real conflict, not merely an uncomfortable or anxious feeling.
Prima facie duties are absolute and never yieldPrima facie duties are binding but can be outweighed by a stronger conflicting duty in a specific situation.

Check your understanding

What is the key feature that makes a situation a GENUINE moral dilemma?

Your friend borrowed your bicycle and has not returned it. You need it for school tomorrow. You feel torn between being kind and being assertive. Is this a genuine moral dilemma?

When a philosopher uses the term 'prima facie duty,' what do they mean?

In a genuine moral dilemma, what does a 'reasoned trade-off' involve?

Recap

A genuine moral dilemma pits two valid obligations against each other so something real is lost either way. You handle it with a reasoned trade-off: weighing the stakes, seeking alternatives, and choosing what you can justify, even though the answer stays imperfect.

Reflect

When did you face a choice where something was lost no matter what?