Moral dilemmas can be "solved" by the acceptance of a a dis-unified "self". Self 1 has different allegiances to self2 and an internal debate ensues. But acceptance of that dis-unity implies the demise of set theoretic logic, because different aspects of self "thing
the world differentially". Thus in the paradox..."the only truth is that there is no truth".... one aspect of self accepts a concept of "truth" and one does not. The transcendent position is to recognize both interactions
with the world can be simultaneously "valid", but to ignore or "forget" that they are dependent on the dis-unified self.
Now a criticism of "catch-all" might be aimed at this analysis ( as per Fil), but I have countered with the acceptance of aspects of this principle from those scientists and philosophers who grasp the idea of paradigmatic shifts and observer-observed interaction. Merleau-Ponty for example (extending Heidegger's "at-handedness") rigorously analysed data on perceptual pathology following bodily injury, and concluded that only a Gestalt
explanation of perception (e.g. duck-rabbit ambiguity scenario) was adequate in explaining the results. Mechanistic explanations, including neurological experiments on "phantom limbs" (another paradox) simply failed.