Final answer:
Moral dilemmas often involve complex philosophical considerations about the nature of morality, which may include utilitarianism, deontology, and the role of divine authority. Philosophers like Michelle Moody-Adams suggest that moral objectivity can be maintained despite disagreements, emphasizing the importance of ongoing debate and refinement of ethical principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
Can moral dilemmas be resolved in an amoral way? This question touches on deep-seated discussions in philosophy regarding the nature of morality and its relationship to divine authority, ethical objectivity, and cultural relativism. Philosophers have proposed various frameworks to address moral questions, including classic utilitarianism and deontology, which offer different approaches to resolving moral dilemmas. Utilitarianism suggests morality is about increasing happiness, while deontology focuses on absolute moral rules. However, both may oversimplify the complexity of moral experiences.
The Euthyphro Dilemma questions whether morality is derived from divine authority or if it exists independently, suggesting that if moral truths are above the divine, moral knowledge may not require divine source. Contemporary philosopher Michelle Moody-Adams argues that while moral disagreements are inevitable, this does not inherently undermine moral objectivity or reasoning. For moral realists, morality has an objective foundation, though people may disagree on what is morally true, similar to scientific debates enhancing understanding in fields like astronomy.
Considering these perspectives, resolving moral dilemmas may be seen as part of an ongoing dialectical process that adapts and refines ethical principles over time rather than relying on unchanging moral absolutes. To think like a philosopher, one must grapple with whether there are objective sources of moral knowledge and consider arguments from various philosophical traditions.