14 great philosophical dilemmas (and their possible solution)

Throughout history, various thinkers have been proposing interesting paradoxes, very difficult solution and that make us think about the extent to which our perception of the world can be taken as a truth.

Then let's see a selection of great philosophical dilemmas, some with names and surnames of great philosophers and others made anonymously, in addition to seeing some of their possible solutions.

• Related article: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

Great philosophical dilemmas to ponder

Here we are going to see great dilemmas that give a lot to think about.

1. Epicurus' evil problem

Epicurus of Samos (341 BC) C. - 270 a. C.) was a Greek philosopher who proposed the problem of evil. It is a riddle that has become one of the great philosophical dilemmas in history.

The curious thing about the problem of evil is the fact that Epicurus, who lived before Christ, defined very well the problem of believing in the Christian God, something truly visionary.

The riddle of Epicurus starts from the fact that many religions of his time were monotheistic, as is the Christianity that had not yet appeared. In most of these religions the figure of God is that of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. Therefore, God can do everything, he knows everything and always does good.

Considering all this, Epicurus wonders how it is possible that evil exists if God meets these characteristics. Taking this into account, we are faced with a dilemma:

• Evil exists because God wants to prevent it, but he cannot do it.
• Evil exists because God wants it to exist.

Either God is not omnipotent or he is not omnibenevolent or he is neither. If God can and wants to eliminate evil, why doesn't he eliminate it? And if God cannot eliminate evil and, above all, he does not want to do it, then why call it God?

2. Pascal's bet

Blaise pascal he was a polymath, known for his advances in mathematics, who was the author of one of the best-known philosophical and theological dilemmas.

His dilemma, Pascal's bet, has to do with the existence of the monotheistic God, as is the case with the riddle of Epicurus, only here Pascal defends believing in his existence. What he suggests is that, in probabilistic terms, believing in God is preferable to not believing in him.

For him, although the existence of God was a minuscule probability, the simple fact of believing in him and that God existed would imply a great profit, eternal glory, in exchange for an act that involves little effort.

Basically, he puts it like this:

• Do you believe in God: If He exists, you win eternal glory.
• Believe in God. If it doesn't exist, you don't win or lose anything.
• You do not believe in God. If it doesn't exist, you don't win or lose anything.
• You do not believe in God. If it exists, you don't earn eternal glory.

3. Sartre's bad faith

Jean-Paul Sartre was a French philosopher, exponent of existentialism and humanist Marxism. He raised a dilemma known as "Bad faith", in which he pointed out that the human being is absolutely free and, consequently, responsible for his behavior.

Despite this, when it comes to assuming responsibility, people prefer to “reify themselves”, in the sense that prefer to say that they were objects of the will and designs of others who were not responsible for their own Actions.

This is often seen in cases where human rights violations have been committed, especially with criminals. of war, stating that all they did was obey orders, that their superiors pushed them to commit barbarities.

The paradox is that there is a point where the person chooses to act evil, whereby, really, he would be free to do whatever he wanted, but at the same time denies his freedom of choice, saying he has been pressured.

According to Sartre, in all circumstances the human being is free to choose between one option or another, but what he does not always do is assume the consequences of his actions.

4. The white lies

Although this question does not have the name and surname of an author, it is a philosophical debate present throughout the history of philosophy and, especially, of morality.

White lies are considered a form of social interaction that, despite violating the rule of not lying under any circumstances, a truly very Kantian idea, with them you avoid causing harm by saying an uncomfortable truth.

For example, if a friend of ours comes to us with a t-shirt that we find in very bad taste and we ask if we like it, can we be honest and say no or we can lie to make him feel well.

This lie is, in essence, harmless, however, we have broken a fundamental rule in all friendship and in society in general: we have not been sincere.

• You may be interested: "The 6 differences between ethics and morals"

5. Are we responsible for all the consequences?

According to consequentialism, posited by utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, what matters are the results of our actions.

These acts and these results may be good or bad, but one does not necessarily imply the other. In other words, doing an action that seems good to us can lead to dire consequences, although it must be said that it all depends on how you look at it.

For example, let's imagine that we go to the supermarket. We may notice a bag of organic and organic potatoes, grown by an NGO that fairly pays its third world workers and helps them build schools. This is all very well, at first glance, because we are, apparently, helping people who do not have many resources. We are being supportive.

However, if we look at it from the other side, perhaps our benevolent actions bring with them very bad consequences. For example, the bag of potatoes comes in a mesh that is neither eco nor bio, the transport from the country of origin to our trusted supermarket It implies polluting and, in addition, we are thinking a lot about people from the third world but the money that we are spending we are not spending on trade in proximity.

Taking this example into account, we can put it in two ways. The good news is that we are being good people helping people without resources and the bad news is that we contribute to the greenhouse effect. How to guide our behavior if everything we do is essentially wrong?

It is difficult to predict all the results of our actions, especially if we do not have all the information.

6. The liar's paradox

The paradox of the liar has its origin in the New Testament and in it the following statement is made: “the Cretan Epimenides says: all Cretans lie”.

This statement is self-referential, with a part of object language and another of metalanguage. To make it known if the sentence is true, it must first be split in two and analyzed separately.

How true or false the phrase "all Cretans lie" is independent of the truth or falsity of the first part of the statement, which is metalinguistic. In the part of "the Cretan Epimenides says" it is studied whether Epimenides says or not that "all the Cretans They lie ”, while in the part of“ all Cretans lie ”it is studied whether they really lie or not.

The paradox occurs because both levels are mixed, causing us a headache. Is Epimenides lying because she is a Cretan? If she lies, then don't Cretans lie? But then Epimenides, who is a Cretan, shouldn't lie either?

There is an example very similar to this and explained in more mundane terms:

We have Pinocchio in front of us and he tells us that when he lies, his nose grows. This is true, so his nose is not growing. But now he goes and tells us that his nose is going to grow now, and that he is sure of it. Will his nose grow out? If he grows up, is he lying to us or telling us the truth? He really did grow a nose, but he didn't know if he was going to grow it, did he?

7. The overcrowded lifeboat

In 1974, the American philosopher and ecologist Garret Hardin posed the following moral dilemma. Compared Earth to a lifeboat carrying 50 people, while 100 were in the water and needed to be rescued. The problem was that the boat only fit 10 more people.

The people on the boat represented the richest and most developed countries, while those who were desperately swimming were the poorest countries. It is, therefore, a metaphor about the distribution of resources in the overcrowded world in which we live.

Given the situation, questions are raised such as who decides that 10 people get on the boat, if it should be launched into the sea at someone on board but showing signs of dying, or the criteria to be used in selecting who to rescue and who does not.

The solution proposed by Hardin himself is that the 50 people already in the boat will not allow anyone else to get on the boat, since With the 10 vacancies available, there is a margin of safety that cannot be waived at all.

As Hardin's Moral Dilemma became famous, the Northwest Association of Biomedical Research in Seattle adapted it.

In his version a ship is sinking while the lifeboats are being prepared, but there is only one and only six people can fit, with 10 passengers still alive. These ten passengers are:

• A woman who thinks she could be six weeks pregnant.
• A lifeguard.
• Two young adults just married.
• An old man who has 15 grandchildren.
• A primary school teacher.
• Two thirteen-year-old twins.
• A veteran nurse.
• The captain of the ship

Who do we save?

8. Tolerate all opinion

We live in a world where freedom of expression is encouraged, or so we believe. No one should forbid us to express our opinion, much less censor us or threaten to harm us if we do not keep quiet.

But, at the same time, we are also aware that there are opinions that hurt others. This is where the question arises as to whether it is legitimate to regulate what people say. In other words, shut up according to what people based on their opinion.

Philosophers have long debated which way of thinking should and should not be tolerated.. Freedom of expression is a sensitive issue, and it is difficult to establish universal criteria and clear lines to establish a clear delimiting line between what is politically correct and what is not. Should we tolerate intolerance? Does not tolerating intolerance make us intolerant? What do we understand by intolerance?

9. When to blame and when to forgive?

In relation to the above dilemma, sometimes there is a situation where someone does something bad to us. It is then that, after going through various feelings, we have to decide whether to forgive or continue to resent, blaming that person for what he has done, even if it was inadvertently or without being aware of the consequences of his actions.

This very mundane has been a much debated philosophical question throughout history, especially in situations where people Those who have suffered greatly, such as Holocaust survivors, have forgiven those who wronged them, in this case, officials Nazis.

It is right? Is it okay to forgive despite the damage done? Are guilt and resentment negative but necessary emotions? Is simply having resentment bad?

Of course, guilt and forgiveness are two fundamental aspects in our culture and in our relationship with institutions, something that, unfortunately, can be seen a lot today with the government management of the crisis sanitary. Is it fair to blame our rulers for how things have turned out?

10. Tram dilemma

The tram dilemma is a very classic example of how people reason morally. The situation is extremely well known: we have a tram that is out of control on the road on which it circulates. On the road there are five people who have not realized that the vehicle is coming at high speed and is going to run over them.

We have at hand a button with which we can change the trajectory of the tram, but for the worse Luckily, on the other road that the tram would circulate there is a person who has not found out about the situation.

What should we do? We push the button and save five people but kill one? Didn't we push the button and allow five people to die?

11. Journalist's dilemma

A journalist travels to the Amazon to report on his indigenous peoples. Arrived at the place, he is kidnapped by a troop of guerrillas who lead him to his camp.

The hostages have 10 people in the den. The guerrilla leader hands the journalist a pistol and tells him that if he kills one of those ten people, he will set the other nine free. However, if he kills none, he will be in charge of executing at 10. What should the journalist do?

12. Heinz's dilemma

A woman suffers from cancer that, until recently, was considered terminal. Fortunately for her the cure has been found, only there is a problem: the cure is extremely expensive, worth ten times the production value, and only has one pharmacist.

The husband of the sick woman goes to the pharmacist asking for a discount, or that he allows him to pay it in installments, but the pharmacist refuses. She or she pays for everything or does not have the treatment. Would it be right for the husband to steal the drug to cure the wife of him?

13. Dilemma of pardon

An 18-year-old had a drug problem and needed money. Together with his friends he went to the house of a widowed woman who lived with her two children. The young man and his friends stole the money from the school of one of the children, several valuables and, on top, family memories.

The young man was arrested and sentenced to a sentence of more than two years, but he does not serve the sentence because he has a very good lawyer.

Seven years later, after having reintegrated, marrying and forming his own family in addition to being a productive member of the society working as a construction laborer, the original sentence is appealed and the young man is asked to step on the prison.

The lawyer has asked for a pardon, alleging that the young man is completely reinserted. Should pardon be granted?

14. The hedgehog's dilemma

The Hedgehog's Dilemma is a parable written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in 1851.

A group of hedgehogs are nearby and simultaneously feel the great need for body heat on a very cold day. To satisfy it, they search for each other and come together, so that their body proximity gives them warmth, but the closer they are, the more pain their quills cause them. However, walking away is not a good option because, although you stop feeling pain, the colder you feel.

What is worth more? Heat and pain or cold and no pain? The idea of ​​the parable is that the closer a relationship is between two people, the more likely they are to hurt each other. Ideally, try to keep your distance, but it is very difficult to find the ideal point so that two beings do not injure themselves or feel the lack of human warmth.

Bibliographic references:

• Alop, Jim (2013) Critique and Evaluation of Immanuel Kant's "Respect for Persons" ESSAI: Vol. 11, Article 8.
• Jarvis-Thomson, J. (1985) "The Trolley Problem", 94 Yale Law Journal 1395-1415.