Ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemmas in the work of a psychologist

Moral paradigms and value guidelines - life, human dignity, humanity, goodness, social justice - are the foundations on which social work is built. In practice, social workers have to face a variety of ethical issues and dilemmas as a result of their obligations to clients, colleagues, their own profession and society at large. Most of the difficulties for a social worker arise from the need to choose between two or more conflicting duties and obligations.

Laws, regulations and client welfare. Legislation cannot provide for all the diversity of social life, so sometimes the client’s well-being comes into conflict with it. In some cases, social workers state that laws and regulations should not be obeyed, otherwise the client will be harmed.

Personal and professional values. At the heart of this group of ethical dilemmas is the conflict between the personal and professional values ​​of the social worker. He may disagree with the client for political, religious, moral or other reasons, but he is obliged to fulfill his professional duty. The opinions of social workers about which values ​​to give preference do not always coincide. The social worker must weigh the obligations to the client, the profession, and third parties.

Paternalism and self-determination. Paternalistic actions involve interfering with clients' wishes or freedom for their own benefit in order to limit the client's self-destructive actions. Paternalism considers it possible to oblige the client to accept services unwillingly or forcibly, to withhold information or provide misinformation. This case raises debate about the limits of permissibility of paternalism. On the one hand, clients have the right to engage in certain forms of self-destructive and risky behavior, on the other, the social worker has a responsibility to advocate for clients on their behalf when they fail. The debate about this often revolves around the concept of self-determination and which clients are able to recognize their situation and make the best decision.

The need to tell the truth. One of the principles of the NACP Code of Ethics is the right of clients to receive reliable information about matters related to their condition and well-being. On the one hand, this legal right is not questioned. On the other hand, in some cases it seems ethically justifiable and even necessary to hide the truth from clients or provide misinformation. For example, in the case of sick clients or children, for whom truthful information may be considered harmful under certain circumstances.

Confidentiality and private nature of communications. The social worker, following the Code of Ethics, must keep information received from the client confidential. While this is almost always true, there are occasions when a social worker may have to consider disclosing information when, for example, there is a risk that the client may cause harm to a third party. Hence the need arises to inform the client about the limits of confidentiality in a particular situation, about the purposes of obtaining information and its use. On the other hand, a social worker may refuse to disclose information given to him by a client, for example, at the request of a court. In this case, a dilemma arises in relation to the confidentiality of client information and obligations to the employing organization.

These and other ethical problems of social work require the development of ways to overcome them. The ethical codes in which social workers seek answers are written in general terms and with a relatively high degree of abstraction and contain principles that are controversial and themselves present an ethical dilemma.

“The status of ethical theory can be significantly clarified by analyzing the problem of moral dilemmas. Such an analysis is far from being of secondary importance; it leads directly to the conceptual foundations of ethics.

A moral dilemma (from the gr. di(s) - twice and lemma - assumption) is the need to choose between several alternatives, leading in any case to a negative result.

The problematic nature of the situation is that any choice leaves a person in a dramatic and sometimes tragic situation. It seems that someone who wants to do good is unable to do so, and not because of insufficient knowledge. Additional light on the essence of moral dilemmas is shed by their deontic (from the gr. deon - duty) interpretation. Although it is optional, it is nevertheless instructive.

The subject must (English ought) do A (written: OA) and do B, but there cannot be A and B.

Let us give examples of moral dilemmas, of which the first two are widely discussed in Western ethical literature.

The tragedy of Sofia Zavistovskaya. In W. Stirone's short story “Sofia's Choice” (1976), a Polish woman trapped in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz is “rewarded” with the opportunity not to be recognized as a Jew and, therefore, to save herself. She was faced with the choice of dooming either her daughter or her son, who is older than his sister, to the gas chamber. If Sofia does not make a choice, both daughter and son will be destroyed. She makes a decision in favor of her daughter, hoping that her son will be able to save himself faster than her daughter. The poor woman loses contact with her son without ever learning about his fate. Tormented by thoughts of him, Sofia commits suicide years later.

Debt conflict. To the outstanding French philosopher J.-P. Sartre One day his student came and asked for advice. He wanted to become a member of “Fighting France,” an organization that fought against the Nazis, but he was worried about the fate of his mother, who was grieving the death of her eldest son. “What should I do,” asked the young man, “stay with my mother or join the armed forces?” He had many arguments in favor of both the first and second solutions. Neither science nor written morality gave him an answer to the question posed. Sartre but he was philosophically stern: “You are free, choose for yourself.” The meaning of the famous existentialist’s answer is this: everyone is responsible for their own actions. With all the desire Sartre was unable to help his young friend.

The misfortune of Pavlik Morozov. The chairman of the pioneer detachment of the village of Gerasimovka, Sverdlovsk region, was killed in 1932 for denouncing his father, who was hiding grain. It is significant that Pavlik’s act and his fate were assessed differently in different historical periods. During the Soviet years, the pioneer was proclaimed a national hero; in the post-socialist period in Russia he was recognized as a traitor and parricide. Those writing about Pavlik Morozov’s action did not pay any attention to the fact that a 14-year-old boy found himself in a typical situation of a moral dilemma.

Drama N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky. At the request of the German side, the young talented Russian geneticist Timofeev-Resovsky was sent to work in the city of Bukh, where excellent conditions were created for him for scientific creativity. Years passed, and the mature scientist, who by that time was the father of two sons, found himself in a situation of moral dilemma. The Russian side, starting in 1937, demanded his return to his homeland, but, warned by his comrades, he knew that Stalin’s camp was prepared for him. Timofeev-Resovsky remained in Germany, where the fascist regime ruled, and besides, Germany launched a war against the USSR. The courageous scientist kept his cool. But over the course of many years, the tragedy of the situation not only did not decrease, but, on the contrary, increased. His eldest son, a member of an underground group, died. Timofeev-Resovsky himself, miraculously escaping reprisals from the German Nazis, returned after their collapse to Russia, where he dreamed of organizing a promising research institute, but was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Subsequently, he managed to return to active scientific work, but the past constantly reminded the elderly scientist of itself. He acquired more and more friends, who recognized him as an outstanding scientist and patriot, and enemies, who treated him as a collaborator. The latter are still inclined to believe that, firstly, Timofeev-Resovsky himself was responsible for the situation of the moral dilemma under discussion, and secondly, that he could overcome it. At the same time, the scientist’s opponents, including those with scientific degrees, do not show even the slightest desire to take the very problem of the moral dilemma any seriously. They just cannot understand that it was, in principle, irresistible. Timofeev-Resovsky It was not by his own will that he was doomed to tragedy. Tragedy is not overcome, it is experienced in torment and doubt. There is no reason to blame the injured person for it. From the standpoint of ethical theory, this is irresponsible, because the very status of ethical theory, including the entire problematic of moral dilemmas, is misunderstood.

The above four examples are characterized by bringing a moral dilemma to a tragic aggravation. You can give examples of a different kind when it comes to tragedy, but it is still impossible to do without a well-known drama. We have no doubt that the reader has experienced the burden of moral dilemmas. Of course, their comprehension is associated with greater difficulties than the comprehension of ordinary situations, i.e. such provisions in which the subject, after making a choice, does not have to experience moral discomfort.

The problem of moral dilemmas has attracted close attention of scientists only in the last 40 years. In previous years, the dominant point of view was characteristic, for example, of I. Kant , J. Mill And W. Ross that an adequate ethical theory should not allow the very existence of moral dilemmas. This is how researchers usually reason, ruling out the generation of moral dilemmas by ethical concepts that are impeccable, from their point of view. Another position is to accept the existence of moral dilemmas, but the theories are nonetheless considered coherent.

Interest in moral dilemmas has increased after the realization that their problems make much more meaningful demands on ethical theory than previously thought.

According to the so-called opponents of moral dilemmas, they are also often called “rationalists”, the recognition of the existence of genuine moral dilemmas reveals the inadequacy of the initial principles of ethical theory, because they inevitably generate a contradiction, according to which the subject should and should not perform act A (OA is not -OA). Opponents of moral dilemmas readily acknowledge that people, when faced with difficult situations, are forced to make difficult choices. The real contradiction lies not in the fact that it is impossible to reconcile two alternatives A and B, but in a more important circumstance: the very principles of the theory that allow the generation of a contradiction do not stand up to criticism: OA is non-OA. It is precisely this circumstance that is misunderstood by the so-called empiricists who insist on the existence of moral dilemmas. It is completely insufficient, citing examples, to assert the very existence of moral dilemmas. It is important to reconcile the status of ethical theories with the interpretation of the substantive aspects of moral quandaries. It is not necessary to regard these difficulties as genuine moral dilemmas. Otherwise, contradictions cannot be avoided, i.e. collapse of theories. A. Donagan, I. Koni, T. McConnell, and D. Davidson are usually included in the camp of opponents of moral dilemmas. Proponents of moral dilemmas agree with their opponents on at least one point: the status of ethical theories should be taken with the utmost seriousness. But they believe that the presence of moral dilemmas does not force a revision of the status of ethical theories.

They may need cosmetic, but not major, repairs. Among the supporters of moral dilemmas are J.-P. Sartre, W. Williams, M. Nussbaum, R. Marques, W. van Fraasen, J. Holboe.”

Kanke V.A., Modern ethics, M., “Omega-L”, 2007, p. 46-50.

Let me note that fixing the problems of a scientific discipline is a chance for its further development...

First, a moral dilemma represents some problem or issue that needs to be resolved. It may be fraught with conflicts between values, norms, rules or principles. In a situation of ethical dilemma, we may face some difficulty or obstacle, our behavior may be questioned by others who do not agree with our way of acting or understanding of true and false. Our usual way of acting, which in other cases might not be accompanied by special reflection, is here called into question by ourselves or others. We find ourselves in a quandary: should we continue to do what we have always done, or should we make a choice and then justify it to ourselves and to others? Some situations may be completely new, such as problems that have recently arisen in medical ethics or biogenetics. Any of the traditional solutions may be inadequate. If the problem is unique or unusual, then none of the previous prescriptions will give us the answer or clue we need. Of course, we can refuse a choice or action, but this is also a kind of choice and action.

Secondly, an ethical dilemma involves the reflective person(s) themselves, who feels the need to make a choice or a series of acts of choice. But this presupposes that we can choose, that we have some degree of freedom to do exactly this or that way. Determinists argue that choice is an illusion and that whatever we do is determined by previous events. If this were so, then ethics would be irrelevant and impossible, because if our choices are predetermined, then we have no control over our lives, nor can we be right or wrong. There is no need to return to the classic problem of free will versus determinism to show that this argument is flawed. There is no contradiction between the statements: (1) choice is a fact of ethical life and (2) our choice is determined or dependent on minor factually existing conditions. This is especially true in cases where we consider “cause” not as an irresistible force (as David Hume emphasized), but simply as a condition, as an operator of behavior accompanying and participating in the personality. If there were no orderly consistency in human behavior, then nothing could matter to us; we could not make intelligent choices based on the expectation that similar things have happened before. Without objective order and reasonable justification, our choices would be unreliable. No one could evaluate anything or make a reliable inference about how a person would behave. Freedom of choice presupposes some consistency in human behavior, which makes reasonable expectations and predictions possible.

The third feature of an ethical dilemma is the possibility of considering alternative courses of action. If we do not have a clear choice, and we are faced with only one possibility, then the concept of choice has no meaning. Such hopeless situations happen in real life, for example, when a person is in prison and is deprived of all freedom of movement, or when a person dies and his death cannot be prevented. An ethical dilemma must have two or more possible solutions. These alternatives may arise due to social or natural circumstances or be the result of the creative ingenuity of the ethical researcher, i.e. subject of a moral dilemma. The following dilemma (although not ethical) may illustrate this. If a person is faced with the problem of crossing a river, he can wade it if it is not very deep, or swim across it if the current is not too strong, or cross it on horseback. But he can also build a raft or a boat, construct a bridge, or dig a tunnel under a river. He might even want to rent a helicopter. The latest methods of solving the problem are the result of human ingenuity and are determined by the level of industrial development.

Thus, the alternatives at our disposal are not always given as objective necessity, but can be enriched or even created by our own creative abilities. Achieving our desired goal depends on our skills, on the technology at our disposal. Apparently, intractable ethical dilemmas may one day become solvable through the expansion of alternative possibilities. The ability to act is for man a function of discovery and invention (art and technology). This demonstrates the changing nature of ethical thinking and the difficulty of keeping moral principles intact.

One typical example. Caring for the helpless elderly is an eternal ethical problem, as old as civilization itself. It has many solutions. An old person can leave his village before death so as not to be a burden to the young, as was customary in Eskimo societies. In civilizations with different opportunities, sons, daughters and other family members consider it their responsibility to provide financial and moral support to their elderly parents who are no longer able to work. Historically, large families have had to find ways to keep grandparents and elderly aunts and uncles alive. In societies where independence and self-reliance are highly valued, people consider it their responsibility to provide for their old age through frugality and hard work. In this case, taking care of your retirement life is considered a moral virtue.

These modes of behavior are supported or replaced by other social innovations. Social Security, funded by taxpayers and controlled by the government, has made the problem of the elderly less of a burden. Annual contributions and the insurance system create significant funds used for social purposes. In addition, medicine has made significant advances in the fight against debilitating diseases of aging, so that people are now able to lead productive and enjoyable lives even after retirement. Improving the health of the elderly has created new moral dilemmas. Among older people there are many more able-bodied people who want to continue working. This leads to a fight for jobs, creating tension among young workers who, as taxpayers, support those who live on social security. And this is in an environment where retirees compete with young people in the job market. Thus, every new step forward in human relations gives rise to new moral conflicts.

Issues that have arisen in medical ethics today particularly illustrate the changing nature of ethical standards. The intensive development of medical technology has dramatically plunged us into numerous situations that did not exist before. We can keep dying patients or terminally ill children alive for much longer than ever before. This raises questions of euthanasia and infanticide. Should we use appropriate life-sustaining technology or allow people to die if they choose? The nature of ethical dilemmas is often a direct function of the availability of alternative courses of action and the amount of means from which we must choose to solve our problems. A pluralistic and free society that ensures progressive social changes will always favor the creation of a wider area of ​​dissemination of innovative choice than an authoritarian, closed society with slow social development.

Fourth, when we approach an ethical dilemma intelligently and maturely, we are always able to reflectively identify and evaluate alternative courses of action. This indicates the presence of a specific kind of cognitive process of ethical questioning, reflection, and research. As already noted, there is a difference between those moral norms, standards and values ​​that are accepted on the basis of custom and habit and supported by education or those values ​​that to a certain extent are identified, supported and changed by the very process of seeking and understanding the ethical. Equally erroneous are both the naive assertion that ethics is completely covered by the sphere of the rational and is thereby rational, and the denial of rational elements in morality. We can be deeply confident in the correctness of our approval or condemnation and at the same time recognize that the procedure for ethical choice may include cognitive elements. Reflexivity and awareness are the central points of critical ethics. This distinguishes it from customary ethics, since the former relies on the means and possibilities of reason and reflection, and not on the blind rules of custom.

By passively obeying the ten commandments or injunctions of Jesus and not attempting to evaluate or establish their meaning, it is difficult to achieve ethical awareness and understanding. Only an intelligent person who reflects on his values ​​and principles can turn these moral rules into self-regulating principles. Awakening the capacity for ethical reflection, I argue, represents a higher stage of moral development.

The fifth element of the ethical dilemma is that our choices affect reality and thus have certain consequences. Thus it is not an expression of useless speculative fantasy. Neither the social world nor the natural world can escape the influence of our ethical choices. This means that choice refers to praxis, that is, to practice or behavior. He is causal (caused) by function, being able to change the course of events. Thus, people, through the ethical, enter the world of nature and society, changing and rebuilding them. We are not just passive mediators or observers. Because we behave ethically, we are active agents who have the power to enrich the world or change its direction. It follows that our ethical practical choices have empirical and real results that we can observe. The acts of choice we make have consequences, which allows us to discuss the nature of choice and its objective effectiveness. Logical, utilitarian and pragmatic selection criteria are the most fundamental. It is one thing to approve or condemn an ​​action purely hypothetically, and quite another to see how the choice we make turns out and evaluate its real results. In our human affairs we constantly set ourselves tasks associated with consequences.

It is clear that we need to take into account not just what we say, but what we do. The subject of analysis should not be our ideas or intentions (no matter how important they may be), but our actions, which are most significant because they are woven into relationships between people. We can fantasize about what we should do and yet never do it. Our motives and dreams can in any way exceed our abilities or even the desire to act, but only the action that actually happened remains real. A man can imagine countless times how he undresses a beautiful woman and makes love to her or, say, inflicting a sweet blow of revenge on his enemy. But as long as he only imagines his action, he is not an object of censure or condemnation. Only specific actions are the real results of choice, the consequence of solving an ethical dilemma.

Sixth, to the extent that an action follows from a choice that the individual has made consciously (whether accompanied by deliberation or not), and to the extent that the consequences in turn follow from that action, the individual may bear responsibility for your actions. This means that we can praise him if we approve of his actions, or blame him if we do not approve. This is where the phenomenon of responsibility arises. As Aristotle showed in the Nicomachean Ethics, a person is responsible for his action if what happened was part of his intentions, if he was aware of the circumstances under which he acted, and if the choice was not made in ignorance.

I should note that this understanding of responsibility differs from those theistic ethics that held people guilty for their thoughts. (Whoever desires a woman in his heart commits adultery.) Until an idea is put into action, one cannot judge its moral merits. Moreover, if we condemn a person for his thoughts, then we should all, without a doubt, be condemned. The real test of the quality of a choice is its actual implementation in the world, and only insofar as the criterion of responsibility is applied to it.

If a person, driving a car on an ice-covered road, presses on the brakes and the car hits someone, then this may be a pure accident, especially if the driver did not mean to do this and repents of what he did. He is responsible for what happened because he is the driver. He is guilty even if he did not mean to do evil, but was careless or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Of course, if it were proven that the driver acted knowingly and was full of intent and evil plans to kill the person, he would be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than manslaughter. But it is also true that in some cases motives and intentions can be difficult to establish.

In any case, the main message of critical ethics is that people can learn from their mistakes and change their behavior, even though this may sometimes be difficult or even impossible to do. It is human nature to remember actions for which he repents. We tend to teach our children moral rules that we ourselves have learned. We try to cultivate virtue, to educate and soften our character. We consider some qualities (sloppiness, laziness, indifference to the needs of others) bad, while others (neatness, goodwill, penchant for reflection) are worthy of praise. Ethical choices and actions are related to the learning process. Moral behavior is correctable, amenable to improvement and improvement. Our educational and legal systems recognize this, and we impose various forms of punishment on those whose behavior is considered harmful or reprehensible. Here it is the will of the law to determine the punishment for an act considered a crime.

A dilemma is a variant of the need to make a difficult decision, which consists in realizing the choice between physically mutually exclusive or equally complex morally options. The possibility of a third optimal option is excluded, which is determined by the meaning of this concept. The meaning of the concept of dilemma is revealed when referring to the Greek source; it is translated as “two assumptions” and is considered a conclusion consisting of a put forward condition and the result arising from this, and accordingly has two consequences. A semantic message with more than two parts is called a polylemma.

The dilemma is an example of how, in situations of public social interaction, a person’s personal egoistic motives and motives can contradict the ideas and norms of society, placing the individual in difficult conditions of choice in advance. Also, this difficult choice arises in acute situations, where the individual’s views on moral aspects play a primary role, and the choice of one of the solution options provided by the dilemma will a priori lead to frustration of internal norms.

What is a dilemma

This concept is used in many sciences. For logic and philosophy, this is a combination of judgments that are opposite in their semantic load without possible options for a third. At this level, to solve this problem, certain formulas and patterns are used, thanks to which there are laws of evidence used in the exact sciences.

According to the method of constructing the structure, the options for making a difficult decision are divided into constructive and destructive.

A constructive dilemma implies two certain conditions and two consequences arising from them, respectively. The division is limited only by these presented conditions, and the result is limited to only one possible outcome of the consequence (for example: “if the medicine is effective, then it will help recovery,” “if a person follows the law, then he will not go to jail”).

A destructive dilemma implies the presence of two reasons, from which two consequences may result. This technique denies one of the consequences, and subsequently, one of the grounds.

For psychology and sociology, a dilemma is a situation of choice in which both decisions lead to equally serious difficulties.

A dilemma is an example of how a person is presented between two equivalent alternatives, and the need to make a choice cannot be circumvented. This is its main difference from the problem, since the problem can be solved in completely different ways. The dilemmas that people face in their lives, and not just in scientific research, are classified as social dilemmas; they include moral, ethical, and environmental choices.

The solution to a moral dilemma is possible by deconstructing the difficult choice between two possibilities (i.e. the situation is recognized as morally false), by weakening moral standards, by taking into account one’s own obligations (overriding priority), by creating a rating scale (so that it is possible to choose the lesser evil), Creation of such codes that will be aimed at improving activities and eliminating assumptions.

Types of dilemmas

The main types of dilemmas considered are moral and ethical.

In psychology, a moral dilemma is highlighted, which implies that a person is in a situation of compulsory choice, in which the choice of any of the options entails a violation of moral norms. How a person makes moral choices gives the researcher insight into his personality and way of thinking. And with a massive theoretical resolution of moral problems, it is possible to give a prognostic assessment of the behavior of the average person in a certain situation of complex moral and ethical choice.

Particular attention to the study of the concept of a moral problem has occurred in the last fifty years, and arose from the fact that previously constructed ethical concepts turned out to be incapable of resolving some situations. The development of ethical codes may take into account the impact of actions on society as a whole, but are absolutely useless when faced with personal dramas, which are often dilemmas.

Classic examples that illustrate a moral dilemma are Sophie's choice (when the Nazis asked a woman to choose between the life of her son and the life of her daughter), the fat man in the cave (when to free the exit from the cave and save all members of the group, it is necessary to blow up the fat man). These individually significant topics and choices are unbearably difficult for the individual, and can be experienced so painfully that they lead the individual to withdraw himself from the current situation: in the mild version they are expressed in the form of refusal to choose, in the most critical form - in the form.

A moral dilemma differs from an ethical one in that a moral one has an individual character and influence, while an ethical one is the norms created for a social community and regulating its activities.

The ethical dilemma is related to cultural manifestations, social foundations and political characteristics of society. Religious and ethnic orientation also influences the construction and choice of path. People in helping professions (medics, psychologists, socially oriented professions) most often encounter ethical dilemmas when the preservation or disclosure of information or the adjustment of certain actions are called into question. Usually they try to get around all problematic situations when constructing ethical codes, which spell out the maximum number of options in difficult situations.

Solution to the dilemma

Resolving a dilemma is always a complex, difficult process; its very occurrence stems from the fact that none of the possible options is perceived positively by a person. Often the choice is accompanied by a situation of time pressure, which entails hasty making of erroneous decisions and leads to negative consequences.

The meaning of the word dilemma initially predetermines two unsatisfactory options; accordingly, it cannot be resolved completely; when solving a problem, you can only choose from more or less suitable and effective options.

In the case of a dilemma that concerns interaction with material objects, the solution is quite simple and consists in directing all efforts in one direction (if equipment breaks down - fix it yourself, call a specialist or buy a new one, is decided based on the available data and analysis of the situation).

But when a person finds himself in a situation of choosing between several of his moral values ​​or ethical precepts, the person experiences a complex moral crisis. Here two methods can come to the rescue: choose a certain line of behavior or choose a certain action. Often, when faced with moral or ethical dilemmas, a person finds himself in such a severe mental state of tension that he chooses not to notice or postpone a decision. Various types of psychological defenses may be included here, such as slipping off the topic (discussion of various other topics instead of the important one), intellectualization (attempts to fit a logical basis to what is happening, without trying to look for a way out). Having tried all attempts to avoid making a choice, a person still makes it, guided by his own values, minimizing losses, and achieving a favorable goal through unfavorable means.

However, those who do not want to decide everything rashly, but still want to understand the dilemma, should go through the appropriate stages:

— formulate and identify the problems of the dilemma;

- find and study facts and reasons that could directly or indirectly cause the problem;

- find less obvious options for resolving the problem of a dilemma than the two most likely;

- select facts in favor of each of the decisions;

- subject each option to a test for correctness, benefit, legality, level of morality and ethics;

— identify and verify the chosen solution using public values;

— identify positive and negative arguments for the decision;

- determine for yourself what you will have to sacrifice when making this decision, what consequences it will lead to.

Compliance with this algorithm of actions does not guarantee a 100% favorable outcome of events, but it helps to increase efficiency, minimize losses and analyze the situation in order to protect yourself in the future.

Origin of the term "dilemma" is associated with philosophy, where a dilemma is understood as one of the forms of inferences that is provable in modern formal logic.

Important to remember!

Dilemma(Greek 61(a) - twice, Herra - sentence) - a situation in which the choice of one of two opposing solutions is equally difficult.

Under ethical dilemmas is understood as a situation that requires a choice, and “every choice has its own limitations and is not absolutely correct,” i.e. compliance with one ethical principle, rule, or moral requirement when making a decision interferes with compliance with another ethical principle.

An example of an ethical dilemma is the words written by A. I. Solzhenitsyn on the first page of the Paris edition of The Gulag Archipelago (1973): “With a constriction in my heart, for years I refrained from printing this already finished book: the duty to the still living outweighed the duty to the dead. But now that state security has taken this book anyway, I have no choice but to publish it immediately.”

Paul Kurtz, humanist philosopher, highlighted main features, characterizing an ethical dilemma.

• 1. This is a question or problem that needs to be resolved.
• 2. An ethical dilemma is a problem and a reflective person who must make a choice or series of choices.
• 3. A dilemma always involves the possibility of alternative courses of action.
• 4. Choosing a solution to an ethical dilemma implies the need to evaluate alternative methods of action, reflection and awareness, in contrast to values, moral norms, the acceptance and adherence to which may be associated with upbringing and is not always conscious.
• 5. The choice in an ethical dilemma affects reality and affects the world around us.
• 6. She bears responsibility for the choice that a person consciously makes.

The emergence of ethical dilemmas in the professional activity of a psychologist may be due to:

• - contradictions between the good for one individual and the good for society;
• - benefit for one individual and harm for another;
• - a benefit for one family member or for other family members;
• - professional code of ethics and legal laws;
• - ethical principles of the psychologist's code;
• - moral beliefs and values ​​of the psychologist and the client;
• - the benefit of the individual and the goals or philosophy of the organization.

For thought

What other contradictions could give rise to an ethical dilemma?

According to researchers, the most common dilemmas that arise are related to privacy problem. When members of the American Psychological Association were asked to describe an ethically challenging incident they had recently encountered, of the 703 incidents, 18% involved privacy in some way. Most often, we were talking about situations where the psychologist needed to answer the question of whether it is necessary to disclose confidential information received from the client, if “yes,” then how and to whom. This was information about actual or potential risks to third parties, child abuse.

In second place but in frequency of occurrence are ethical dilemmas associated with dual relationships. It is often difficult to avoid ambivalence if a psychologist practices in a small town where everyone knows each other. Some psychologists believe that ambivalence can be beneficial because practitioners know their clients better.

In third place but most frequently among American psychologists are problems related to with payment of taxes and insurance premiums, caused by contradictions between the interests of clients and those who pay for the services of psychologists. In addition, it is a common practice to offer expensive examinations that bring financial benefits to the organization in which the psychologist works, but are not always necessary for clients.

The uniqueness of each situation of interaction between a psychologist and a client makes it impossible to have recipes for ethical behavior for each specific case, therefore procedures for resolving ethical dilemmas are discussed and developed in the professional community.

• 1. Formulation of an ethical dilemma and possible options for resolving it. Identifying those who might be harmed by the choices involved and their rights, responsibilities and interests. Analysis of personal biases, concerns, or benefits that may influence the choice of a particular course of action. Forecasting potential short-term and long-term risks and benefits for each participant in the process (client, family, employees of the institution, society, the psychologist himself) for each of the decision options.
• 2. Search for information. In Russian psychology, information about possible sources of information on this issue is not sufficiently presented, so one should turn to the detailed recommendations of foreign colleagues. You can use ethical codes of different countries, collections describing ethical problem situations and ways to solve them, consultations with colleagues. Psychological societies in some countries have established telephone consultation services for colleagues. There is no such service in our country yet, but its organization is possible in the future.
• 3. Implementation of the chosen decision option and taking responsibility for possible negative consequences.
• 4. Evaluation and reflection of your decision. Foreign sources recommend writing down and justifying your actions.

In addition to specific professional dilemmas in his work, a psychologist faces ethical problems about which public opinion is ambiguous (for example, attitudes towards abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, the right to voluntary death). In addition, the achievements of modern medicine and new technologies have caused the emergence of new ethical problems related to the ability to manipulate human life and death - surrogacy, organ donation and transplantation, human cloning.