Ferrell , the author of your text, sees an ethical dilemma as the requirement to make a decision that is not covered by the rules. A bit later in the book he also says that it's a situation in which there is no moral course of action, which seems very confusing to me. Another way to think of it that isn't quite so grim is to think of an ethical dilemma as a situation in which two goods (or two rules!) conflict. A classic example: Almost everyone believes that it is wrong to harm innocent life and also that it is wrong to tell a lie. You are in Germany during World War II and a Jewish family is hiding in your basement. The SS arrives at your door, inquiring about the fugitives. Do you lie, or do you attempt to save innocent life? Ethicists do disagree about the right thing to do here, but I don't think that all possible courses of action necessarily are immoral. (You might want to critique your instructor's reasoning here!)
Rushworth Kidder makes another useful distinction; an ethical dilemma is a choice between right and right, while a moral temptation is a choice between right and wrong. In other words, you know perfectly well what the right thing is; you just really, really don't want to do it. Many of the cases in Ferrell are moral temptations rather than ethical dilemmas (which makes them far too easy, it seems to me!).
To answer this discussion question, first post the ethical dilemma you wrote in Module 1 here again, so we don't all have to flip back and forth. Then, answer the following questions about the dilemma you described:
Is it really an ethical dilemma? Why or why not?
Who are the stakeholders and what is at stake?