Abstract

Can there be genuine moral dilemmas? Some say no; it would be, or entail, a contradiction. Others say yes; such things are actual, therefore possible. I criticize standard lines of dilemmatic defense, but side with the defense against standard arguments well presented by David Brink. A leading analogy: moral dilemmas are no more logically offensive than checkmate (another case in which absolute obligations clash: always move out of check; never move into it.) I argue that Brink-style arguments against dilemmas unwittingly and fallaciously stipulate away the possibility of bad behavior