BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEMS: MORAL DILEMMAS AND MORAL
EDUCATION IN AN UNCERTAIN AGE
At the beginning of 2020, a virus began to gradually circulate and
destroy the health of many human beings and societies around the world.
Following the rapid development of international and local transportation,
which has accelerated the dissemination of diseases generally, the
challenges of this new epidemic are much more complicated than those that
we’ve faced before, and many controversial issues related to different types
of moral dilemmas have emerged (Chan et al., 2020). However, lives need to
be saved in time, solutions need to be found very quickly, and many decisions
must be made as soon as possible. Therefore, various struggles regarding
COVID-19 in different countries and/or cultural settings have been
challenging people’s decisions (Borges et al., 2020; Chan, 2020) and their
capacity to sustain moral self-cultivation.
Looking back at the history of human epidemics and pandemics, we find
that lethal epidemics have become more globalized in the last
century.1Except for the 1918 Flu Pandemic (or Spanish Flu), COVID-19 is
the most threatening disease in the last 100 years in terms of infection and
death rates. Even though several good vaccines have been developed for
COVID-19, it is becoming increasingly likely that this influenza virus will
continue to take many people’s lives. Meanwhile, many new challenges and
moral dilemmas have appeared during this pandemic period. Thus, it is
necessary to investigate and discuss the very important potential role of
moral education in the context of this terrible pandemic.
In this paper, I review academic papers that may help to clarify the
moral dilemmas we have been forced to face during this terrible pandemic. I
analyze them from societal, individual, institutional or organizational, and
national/international perspectives, and I point out creative approaches and
solutions to the dilemmas, along with their potential advantages and
disadvantages. Finally, I propose some approach
in which we might strengthen our moral education during this global
pandemic and (potentially) post-pandemic eras.
MORAL DILEMMAS AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
At the beginning of 2020, COVID-19 began to silently permeate our
human societies. Too quickly it spread not just through China and the rest of
Asia but also through many other countries and societies around the world.
This disaster has challenged humanity and forced us to quickly make moral
decisions while facing dilemmas in multiple social and cultural contexts.
These dilemmas at the individual level may be briefly divided into two types:
There are the dilemmas which each person faces as he/she plays his/her
different social roles, but we also see people’s different social roles, and the
larger problem of how to play them, pose dilemmas on a larger scale.
Multiple authors have proposed many creative solutions to resolving these
different kinds of dilemmas.
With the invasion of COVID-19, people naturally have wanted to
minimize the risks to their health; on the other hand, they also have wanted,
indeed needed, to fulfill their social responsibilities and to keep their jobs, as
well as maintain their personal rights. Such dilemmas manifest in various
ways: for example, should parents stay home with their children or send
them to daycare centers and go to work? Another example is this: Many
hospital healthcare workers suffered from mental health disorders such as
anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) during the
peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they still had to stay at the hospital to
do their jobs (Agarwal et al., 2021; Delgado et al., 2021; Jia et al., 2021).
Some of them developed a kind of aerosol box in order to reduce the
personal risk of infection when working on such risky procedures as
intubation (Babu et al., 2020). Moreover, many people are still facing the
moral dilemma of whether to put their family’s health first or to put their
family’s economic security first. Should they continue their jobs as restaurant
servers, travel agents, transport workers, healthcare workers, etc., to
support their families, or should they stay at home to prevent bringing
COVID-19 to their older family members?
Another type of dilemma manifests in the individual’s role in society. For
example, when healthcare workers face limited healthcare resources, they
have to decide who gets needed medical resources (e.g., a respirator or
medical bed) first and who must wait for a longer time (Carroll IV et al., 2020;
Chan, 2020; Chan et al., 2020). If we take a closer look at situation, we find
that different individuals apply different moral standards in making their
decisions when facing these sorts of dilemmas, and they are more likely to
adopt utilitarianism than some other ethical doctrine (Everett et al., 2021).
In addition to these dilemmas arising from the different social roles of
each individual, there are also dilemmas related to the social roles of
different groups of individuals, for example, the human rights of healthcare
workers vs patients, older vs younger people, and teachers vs students. This
kind of dilemma springs from different personal needs that can only be met
by balancing decisions that support each of the social roles involved (Byrd &
Białek, 2021). For example, a balance may need to be struck between
maintaining the human rights of healthcare workers and preserving the
human rights of their patients (Sperling, 2021). On the one hand, healthcare
workers may want to avoid some potentially dangerous surgical procedures;
on the other hand, patients may want more treatment options. Such
circumstances can raise controversial issues such as whether doctors and
nurses may choose to see certain patients but not others if they do not have
enough protective medical equipment to see each patient (Swazo et al.,
2020; Zhu et al., 2021).
A similar dilemma may appear when two people have different beliefs or
come from different generations. Some people regard attending their
religious prayer meetings or engaging in certain political, social, or economic
activities as more important than caring for those who may be vulnerable to
the life-threatening symptoms of COVID-19 (Byrd & Białek, 2021; Carroll IV
et al., 2020). Similar dilemmas involve teachers and students. Say that to
protect both parties from COVID-19 it is determined that they should not be
present at the same physical location at the same time. The question then
arises what to do with students who need social support from their teachers
and other students who can only be supplied in the classroom. Should the
distancing requirement only apply when the teacher lives in a high-risk
area for COVID-19 and the students live in a low-risk area (Bailey & Schurz,
2020)?
Generally speaking, the above dilemmas raise the problem of the “order
of values” in the context of different social roles. That is, a person has to learn
how to judge which values should be considered most important and which
ones least important. For example, how does a person decide whether love of
family members or professional integrity should take priority? Should the
human rights of patients be considered more important than those of
healthcare workers? Should students’ rights be considered more important
than teachers’ health?
The need to make moral decisions in a short time during the global
pandemic has forced individuals to experience considerable distress, mainly
due to limited information and resources (Borges et al., 2020). A clear value
system is required for making proper ethical decisions quickly. Therefore,
the ethical dilemmas that have often appeared during the global pandemic
have led us to recognize the true significance of moral education, which
really means training students to make proper moral decisions at a time of
great urgency.
MORAL DILEMMAS AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
The dilemmas that have appeared at various levels of the social
hierarchy during the global pandemic since 2020 have either weakened or
strengthened organizations’ unique or specialized functions, and it has
forced many countries to suddenly shut down their institutions. During this
period, we found that not only schools but also catering services and other
such businesses had confronted the dilemma of “shutting down or re-
opening” (Bokde et al., 2020). This difficulty forced them to develop different
strategies in order to maintain their social functions, as otherwise their
organizations might become weakened or forced to downsize. For example,
many public and private organization’s activities have been eliminated or
reduced, and some economic, religious, and social functions have been
weakened. Evidence for such responses to the pandemic can be found in the
rising unemployment rates in many countries hit by the pandemic.
Despite the facts that the pandemic has been severe and greatly
influenced most people’s everyday lives, many institutions have developed
relevant response strategies. For example, the aviation industry changed
airliners into cargo aircraft to serve the new social needs of its customers,
and restaurants began to offer drive-thru meal boxes instead of serving
meals inside. Similar changes were made in schools too. For example, online
lessons and working from home have become much more common (Toquero,
2021). However, it is also true that the functioning of these institutions has
been greatly challenged and/or weakened during the pandemic.
In contrast, given the pressure to release many patients, the capacities
of the hospitals and other healthcare organizations have been forced to
expand much more rapidly, in spite of the challenges. Confronted by these
dilemmas, medical care systems chose to expand and accelerate their
functioning by adopting temporary expedients such as mobile home hospitals
and drive-through testing facilities. Moreover, to curb and, if possible, to
control the endless spread of infections and deaths, abundant resources were
allotted to the biomedical industry to promote the production of more
medical equipment and vaccines, as well as therapeutic medications
(Broockman et al., 2021). At this historic moment, medical departments have
thus undergone rapid expansion and made numerous adjustments.
In addition, many schools and businesses have used digital devices (e.g.,
virtual event platforms such as Zoom, Webex, and Meet) to overcome some
of the above dilemmas (Akporehe & Asiyai, 2020). This trend has also led to
the digital technology being greatly expanded and the corresponding
industries continually strengthened (Ishmaev et al., 2021; Miller, 2021;
Subbian et al. 2021). The dilemmas faced by organizations have also
challenged such ideals as equal educational opportunities for all children, the
right to life, and the right to work.
Suddenly faced with these new dilemmas and challenges during the terrible
global pandemic, organizations at every level of society have shown their
creativity and resilience. For moral education, a key issue that has appeared
during these periods of adjustment is social justice. Many of these
adjustments have led to dilemmas of equal vs unequal distribution. For
example, many disadvantaged people have become unemployed and thus now
have fewer opportunities to obtain such vital resources as high-grade digital
and other technical equipment. These problems also have influenced
our educational systems. Students from disadvantaged groups have lacked
needed material resources, and their below-standard living environments
have lowered their sense of security in the spiritual domain (Sabates et al.,
2021). Moreover, the underfunding of schools and other educational
organizations has prevented some students from receiving online lessons or
digital equipment, as well as helpful knowledge from information technology
devices.
HOW CAN PRACTITIONERS OF MORAL EDUCATION LEARN FROM THIS
GLOBAL PANDEMIC?
Since the appearance of COVID-19, various moral dilemmas have
challenged not only our human ideals and value systems but also the
reliability of international cooperation in promoting public health. How can
we rebuild a trustworthy, reliable, and safe society? Obviously, moral
education will play a crucial role in meeting this greatest challenge of the
century. Clearly everyone needs to solidly support the principles of
“moral education for all” and “moral education at every level of society.”
Making clear the order of priority of various values or virtues at the
individual, organizational, and societal levels remains a challenge. For
example, our right to live and our right to work are clearly important, as are
the need to avoid medical risks and to save as many lives as possible, the
need for continuing professional development and economic efficiency at all
levels of society, as well as the values of freedom, democracy, transparency
and national security at both the international and national levels.
Individuals, organizations, and societies may differ in how they rank the
importance of such values or virtues as courage, patience, caring and
sympathy, benevolence, fairness and justice, honesty, and respect. Of course,
we may find in assigning these ranks that paradoxes and conflicts appear.
Therefore, dialogues, debates, and reflections about the relative importance
of different values and virtues in different situations, or social contexts, will
remain very important in moral education (Klenk & Van de Poel, 2021).
At the individual level, it is always a great challenge when one has to
make value or ethical decisions in a short time or at emergent moments.
Making good decisions may require extensive education about morality
or values, as well as a deep self-understanding and a clear awareness of
self-other relationships. In other words, people should learn to recognize the
order of priority of their own value choices. It will take time to continually or
repeatedly rank our values in terms of preference, especially when
confronted with cases that require our urgent attention. Consideration of
ethical doctrines could also help people understand which value applications
are most helpful for them, for example, in making their lives flourish
(according to Aristotle’s ethics), their consciences and minds at peace
(according to Kantian or Confucian ethics), and their relationships with
others harmoniously (according to the ethics of caring or ren-benevolence
ethics) (Benko, 2020; Branicki, 2020; Bustan et al., 2021). Of course,
sometimes these considerations may lead us into dilemmas or conflict
situations. Moral education in our schools, with an emphasis on traditional
ethical principles, may further enable us to pursue the path of self-
cultivation.
How can organizations face and overcome emerging dilemmas in a
changing society? For example, decisions to downsize or expand
organizations inevitably raise issues or problems of equality/inequality,
which often result in certain disadvantaged people or groups being ignored
(Kooli, 2021). How can organizations best perform
what they see as their most important social and ethical duties? The tradition
in various societies around the world has often been to adopt utilitarian
ethics (Carroll IV et al., 2020). However, during this present period of a
(potentially global) pandemic, some disadvantaged and thus vulnerable
people have often been ignored. Therefore, to achieve a highly productive
level of professional and ethical decision-making, freedom of discussion will
remain very important. Here Kantian ethical doctrines or John Rawls’ theory
of justice could be adopted to support our decision-making, because these
ideas are concerned with the true meaning and universal importance of
human rights.
Finally, we must always keep in mind the crucial role of national
governments and international organizations. Their policies will broadly
influence individuals and organizations on matters such as the distribution of
healthcare resources and vaccines, the spread of the virus, and economic
risks. Obviously, policy makers will need more than a few professional
groups to help them evaluate and predict potential trends. In addition, to
avoid the influences exerted from the local or national propagandas, and
then to engage in rational ethical decisions will become a necessity for
leaders to make wiser and more proper decisions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly tested the global effectiveness of
moral education. It has challenged individuals, as well as national and
international organizations and polities to quickly make important ethical
decisions, where making such decisions depends not only on personal and
communal values but also on having sufficient professional information. This
exigency has led to the adoption of various strategies for making better
moral decisions during the pandemic. For example, the ethics of caring and
of ren-benevolence, as well as utilitarian ethics, have been adopted to deal
with the serious and complex dilemmas we’ve been facing at the individual
and community levels. However, at the organizational and governmental
levels, utilitarianism has been more effective than other approaches in
guiding good decision-making with respect to the most urgent and
threatening events.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 has been a terrible burden but also has potentially provided
an important lesson for people around the world, as it has led to many utterly
challenging moral dilemmas. During this global epidemic, many ethical
decisions have been made in a short time at the individual, organizational,
national, international, and societal levels. Inevitably, many tragic events
have had to be endured. Therefore, the long-term cultivation of moral
education, especially the capacity to make wise moral decisions in the face of
every major dilemma that might confront at either the individual or
institutional level, is always necessary for all human societies. Proper ethical
decision-making depends on sufficient professional competence and
knowledge, which often require effective teamwork.
To reach the goal of rebuilding a moral society, of course, the daily
practice of self-cultivation and thoughtful value judgment, as well as making
wise ethical decisions on a daily basis based on sufficient professional
information, will always be very helpful. Adopting traditional and
contemporary ethical doctrines (ren-benevolence or caring ethics,
utilitarian discrimination, Aristotle’s thoughts on eudiamonia (happiness,
well-being or flourishing), Kantian ethics) should help decision-makers
expand and deepen their understanding of the problem at hand.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, A., Agarwal, S., & Agarwal, A. (2021). Mental health among
patients in a COVID-19-dedicated facility. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 115(1), 1–2.
Akporehe, D. A., & Asiyai, R. I. (2020). Corona virus pandemic and the
dilemma of learning in Nigerian secondary schools: The way forward.
ATBU Journal of Science, Technology and Education, 8(2), 314–322.
Babu, B., Shivakumar, S., & Asokan, K. (2020). Thinking outside the box in
COVID‐
19 era: Application of modified aerosol box in dermatology. Dermatologic
Therapy, 33(4), Article 13769.
Bailey, J. P., & Schurz, J. (2020). COVID-19 is creating a school personnel
crisis. American Enterprise Institute.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ COVID-19-Is-Creating-
a-School-Personnel-Crisis.pdf?x91208
Benko, S. L. (2020). Looking forward, looking back: Reflections on values and
pedagogical choices during Covid-19. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of
Writing Teacher Education, 9(1), 19.
Bokde, V., Kharbikar, H. L., Roy, M. L., Joshi, P., & Ga, A. (2020). Possible
impacts of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on education sector in
India. Food and Scientific Reports, 1, 30–33.
Borges, L. M., Barnes, S. M., Farnsworth, J. K., Drescher, K. D., & Walser, R.
D. (2020). A contextual behavioral approach for responding to moral
dilemmas in the age of COVID-19. Journal of Contextual Behavioral
Science, 17, 95–101.
Branicki, L. J. (2020). COVID‐19, ethics of care and feminist crisis
management.
Gender, Work & Organization, 27(5), 872–883.
Broockman, D., Kalla, J., Guerrero, A., Budolfson, M., Eyal, N., Jewell, N. P.,
Magalhaes, M., & Sekhon, J. S. (2021). Broad cross-national public
support for accelerated COVID-19 vaccine trial designs. Vaccine, 39(2),
309–316.
Burkle, F. M. (2020). Declining public health protections within autocratic
regimes: Impact on global public health security, infectious disease
outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. Prehospital and Disaster
Medicine, 35(3), 237–246.
Bustan, S., Nacoti, M., Botbol-Baum, M., Fischkoff, K., Charon, R., Madé, L.,
Simon J.R., & Kritzinger, M. (2021). COVID 19: Ethical dilemmas in
human lives. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 27(3), 716–732.
Byrd, N., & Białek, M. (2021). Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical
beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when
predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Cognition, 212, Article 104649.
Carroll IV, C., Aziz, K. T., & Humbyrd, C. J. (2020). Elective reconstructive
surgery during a pandemic: A moral dilemma. Journal of Bone and Joint
Surgery, 102(11), Article 51
Chan, D. (2020). How to make critical decisions amid Covid-19 pressures.
Research Collection: School of Social Sciences. Paper 3213.
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/ soss_research/3213
Chan, P. S., Berg, R. A., & Nadkarni, V. M. (2020). Code blue during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes,
13(5), 261–263.
Delgado, J., Siow, S., de Groot, J., McLane B., & Hedlin M.. (2021). Towards
collective moral resilience: The potential of communities of practice
during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Journal of Medical Ethics,
47(6), 374–382.
Everett, J. A., Colombatto C., Awad E., Boggio P., Bos B., Brady W.J., Chawla,
M., Chituc V., Chung D., Drupp M.A., Goel S., Grosskopf B., Hjorth F., Ji
A., Kealoha C., Kim J.S., Lin Y., Ma Y., Maréchal M.A., …Crockett, M.J.
(2021). Moral dilemmas and trust in leaders during a global health
crisis. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 1074–1088.
Ishmaev, G., Dennis M., van den Hoven, M. J. (2021). Ethics in the COVID-19
pandemic: Myths, false dilemmas, and moral overload. Ethics and
Information Technology, 23(1), 1–16.
Jia, Y., Chen, O., Xiao, Z., Xiao, J., Bian, J., & Jia H. (2021). Nurses’ ethical
challenges caring for people with COVID-19: A qualitative study. Nursing
Ethics, 28(1), 33–45.
Klenk, M., & Van de Poel, I. (2021). COVID-19, uncertainty, and moral
experiments.
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 43(1), 1–5.
Kooli, C. (2021). COVID 19: Public health issues and ethical dilemmas.
Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 17, Article 100635.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC7847409/pdf/main.pdf
Miller, K. E. (2021). The ethics of care and academic motherhood amid
COVID‐19.
Gender, Work & Organization, 28(S1), 260–265.
Sabates, R., Carter, E., Stern, J. M.B. (2021). Using educational transitions to
estimate learning loss due to COVID-19 school closures: The case of
complementary basic education in Ghana. International Journal of
Educational Development, 82, Article 102377.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102377
Sperling, D. (2021). Ethical dilemmas, perceived risk, and motivation among
nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nursing Ethics, 28(1), 9–22.
Subbian, V., Solomonides, A., Clarkson, M., Rahimzadeh, V.N., Petersen, C.,
Schreiber, R., DeMuro, P., Dua, P., Goodman, K.W., Kaplan, B., Koppel,
R., Lehmann, C.U., Pan, E., & Senathirajah, Y. (2021). Ethics and
informatics in the age of COVID-19: Challenges and recommendations
for public health organization and public policy. Journal of the American
Medical Informatics Association, 28(1), 184–189.
Swazo, N. K., Talukder, M.H., & Ahsan, M.K. (2020). A duty to treat? A right
to refrain? Bangladeshi physicians in moral dilemma during COVID-19.
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 15(1), 1–23.
Toquero, C. M. (2021). Emergency remote education experiment amid
COVID-19 pandemic. IJERI: International Journal of Educational
Research and Innovation, 15, 162–176.
Zhu, J., Stone, T., & Petrini, M. (2021). The ethics of refusing to care for
patients during the coronavirus pandemic: A Chinese perspective.
Nursing Inquiry, 28(1), Article 12380.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nin.12380
