ABSTRACT
There are three kinds of moral conflict: (1) conflicts of obligation and benevolence, when to do one’s duty
or to act justly may involve unkindness; (2) conflicts of obligation, when it is not possible to fulfil one moral
obligation without failing to fulfil another; (3) conflicts of benevolence, where kindness or particular attention
to one person precludes like kindness to another. The last type of conflict, conflict of benevolence, is not, of course, a conflict involving moral obligation, for we take all acts of benevolence to be moral actions that go beyond the call of duty. Nevertheless there are situations where competing appeals to our charitable natures pose a problem which we may see as a moral problem. A classic example is the problem facing a person who sees two strangers drowning and who is able to rescue only one of them, and that at great risk. Who should she pick? The one seen first, the one who is calling, the man, the woman, the younger, the elder, and so on? There are many factors that could affect the decision, but agonising as the decision may be, the choice made is not truly a moral choice and there is no moral conflict. The morality lies in trying to rescue at all; an individual will not be blamed for rescuing one rather than the other. Indeed, except that such a serious situation cannot be viewed lightly, the rescuer might make a choice for a frivolous reason: I chose the one with red hair.
