A dilemma is an issue that can have two outcomes. Neither outcome is unambiguously acceptable. Its possibilities are called the "horns of the dilemma." The term is often a cliche, but it helps distinguish a dilemma from other predicaments. A dilemma can be either moral or legal in some instances.
False dilemmas
False dilemma, also known by false binary or false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy where a person's options can be limited by an untrue presumption. The fallacy is a common one in decision-making. False dilemmas may be difficult to spot since they are not based on valid premises. It is important that you are aware of this and try to avoid it whenever you can.
Children can benefit from false dilemmas, especially when they are used to simplify situations and decisions. Instead of asking your child which shirt they want, have him choose between two shirts. Doing so will give your child the ability to make a decision.
Conflict-of-Interest situations
When two or more people have conflicting interests, a conflict of interest can occur. This situation can hinder an individual's ability to make an objective decision. An example of this is an employee who bribes his employer to purchase inferior goods. This could put him or her employer in conflict. This can also happen when two parties must be answered and one side would harm the other.
An individual or group can become involved in a conflict if they have conflicts of interest. For example, board members have a duty of care to the best interest of the organization. This obligation should not be placed above personal gain and special interests.
Symmetrical cases
Symmetrical dilemmas arise in cases of conflict between competing moral rules. In such cases, an agent's role-related responsibilities take precedence above his or she general obligations. In such cases, the agent's role-related obligations take precedence over his or her general obligations. This is not the case everywhere.
In symmetrical cases, the moral dilemma arises when the agent is confronted with a choice between actions that would harm or benefit the other party. Such cases are often dismissed by the public as being spurious or irrelevant because they do not give an honest reason why the agent is acting. Randomization does provide no reason for an agent to act. Randomization is justified by the threat to authorship caused arbitrariness.
Moral and interpersonal conflicts
Interpersonal moral conflicts refer to conflicts between people over moral or ethical issues. These conflicts are caused by a conflict in the personal values of the two individuals. Factual conflicts can often been resolved by rechecking credible sources, but values conflicts are more difficult. This is when beliefs and values are fundamentally different.
You can divide moral conflicts within a relationship into two types: world-imposed and self-imposed. The actions of the agent can create self-imposed dilemmas. For example, he may make two incompatible promises and attend two different events. World-imposed dilemmas can only be solved by another person and are not created by the agent. This distinction is critical for moral theories.