There are times when human beings act while showing little or no concern about the possible consequences of their actions. It is a moral dilemma, when one has a prima facie moral duty to act beneficently towards oneself and yet another moral duty to refrain from acting maleficently towards others. This study aimed to explain the moral dilemma during the doctors’ strikes at the Muhimbili National Hospital. This was a qualitative research that used interviews, questionnaires and Focus Group Discussions. The study found out that though it is difficult to have a clear-cut conclusion, there are some moral reasons that make doctors’ strikes prima facie right, however, generally the doctors’ strikes are morally wrong, which is enough reason for doctors not to strike. The study recommends that universities that specialize on health sciences should put emphasis on teaching ethics and the moral values of the society. It argues that strikes would be minimal if doctors are aware of their required professional integrity and the government has respect for the professionals but vitally if the whole public has a required knowledge of what is right and wrong or good and bad. Thus, using a moral norm, the study concludes that the primary moral duty of doctors is to abstain from acting maleficently towards others as per their Hippocratic Oath. Harm to others is an overriding countervailing moral reason for doctors not to strike. However, both striking and not striking causes harm to others and therefore the primary moral duty deprives the doctors of their liberty to strike should they be certain of the consequences of not striking.university of Dar es salaam