Topics Ethics

Question I am wondering how philosophers try to resolve ethical dilemmas in which both sides have reasonable claims to be "right." In particular, I'm wondering about the conflict recently in the news between a woman's right to contraception and an employer's right to refuse to do something considered sinful by his religion. As a more specific example, consider a woman's right to obtain a medicine such as Plan B in a timely manner (say, a woman in an isolated town with only one pharmacy, to whom a pregnancy is likely to prove fatal, and who was raped by her brother) and a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense such a medicine because he considers doing so the equivalent of committing homicide. Is there any method of resolving such a dilemma in a way that recognizes the ethical arguments of both sides?

Accepted:
March 22, 2012

Comments

An interesting question. Without trying to settle the issues you use to raise your question, I'd suggest that there's no sure-fire method to be had here, and that while philosophers have things to contribute, they don't have any sort of magic wand.

Ethical conundrums come up when different ways of looking at an ethical question suggest different and incompatible answers, and when the different approaches have some serious plausibility. Many people will agree: there's something to the idea that a woman who wants the Plan B medication ought, other things being equal, to be able to get it. But many of those same people will agree that in general, people shouldn't need to violate their consciences to practice otherwise respectable professions. Put briefly, both sides have plausible starting points. This is true of a good many serious disagreements, ethical or otherwise: the right answer isn't obvious, and different answers are prima facie plausible enough to be taken seriously.

So what do thoughtful people do in cases like this? They dig deeper. They make distinctions; they look for considerations that the first-blush version of the disagreement misses; they consider analogies with cases where we feel that we have a firmer grip on the answer; they try to formulate principles that make sense of the case at hand and also of other cases. This leaves lots of room for acknowledging that those one disagrees with aren't foolish or flat-out wrong. Indeed, insofar as what the other side has to say seems plausible on its face, one's reply will have to take account of that.

There's no guarantee that this way of going about things will settle the disagreement, but any "method" that offered an algorithm would almost certainly make assumptions that at least one side to the disagreement would find suspicious.

So in lieu of a "method" we have what we've always had: the usual tools people use when they try to think clearly. Philosophers are often good at using those tools, but non-philosophers can be just as good. Thinking harder may produce agreement, but even when it doesn't, it can sharpen the issues and narrow the range of disagreement. Asking for more than that is often asking for more than we can have.