I would like to hear your opinions.
An ethical dilemma is a situation in which a person must choose between two or more options, each of which has moral significance. Choosing between an option that respects a moral principle and another that serves only one’s self-interest would not generally be considered an ethical dilemma, because only one of the options has moral value.
Yes ethical dilemmas involve choices that are undesirable. For example do you tell the truth or lie to the axe murderer (deontological ethics)?
In the example you gave, there are two moral choices; saving one’s life has moral value.
Here is another example: Jen wants a new bag. Her friend has one. Should she steal it or not?
Here there is one choice that has moral value.
Sounds right. It may still be a problem, depending on the sort of person I am, but yes, “ethical dilemma” usually refers to a choice between two mutually exclusive horns that both respond to ethical imperatives.
In an ethical dilemma, it is pitted to competition or vote.
Saving one’s life is paramount. That’s an of course, of course. Moral dilemmas are usually framed different from the way you did. Take the famous 1 heavy person is to 5 persons trolley predicament. Someone once jokingly-seriously remarked, you’re also 1 person.
I reject the premise due to mostly the final sentence. They both can have moral value. Self interest can deal with ones inner world even if there is no reward coming from a external source like a religious group imposing a set ruleset on someone, if that someone has personal attachments to whatever is being cited it can weigh on them for not choosing choice (x) over (y) and can even be worse than going with the flow of what is being considered as morally acceptable.
Example: You will not save any predators (a) life. They are not native to this ecosystem and are destroying it. Please do the right thing and help save these lands by either killing or reporting (a). Beth always reports (a) when seen but never kills due to her personal moral code. She accepts the moral stance of this community up to not killing it.
There is a structure like a bridge or whatever that seems to always attract animals. When they cross it they always die without a warning from something due to this condition. Due to this, Beth has taken it upon herself to always warn the animal because she felt it was the right thing to do. A personal choice. When faced with a death predicament where predator(a) will die due to her not warning the animal to get out of the way where in other situations she has always warned animals to get off of the structure in order to save their life, by choosing to go against this normal standard,she is indirectly supporting the social moral standard of the community of killimg these predators against her own, of never killing a animal, even if she is not directly responsible for doing it. She is going against her norm due to the judgement of this community and thus is in a situation where her personal morals can conflict with societies and can experience a ethical dilemma due to it.
Its a good question. I wonder whether it’s true that ethical choices are always about two external goods. There are quite a lot of people who reject the idea that morality is always about helping others. Ayn Rand claims that our primary duty is to ourselves. Nietchzhe commonly questions whether morality is always about putting the interest of the community first. Finally Epicurus also says that happiness is the highest good and justice only has an instrumental value in making happiness possible. I am not sure that these point to a clear argument against morality being concern for others. But we do sometimes have an expectation of people that they look after their own interests. So if someone starved themselves because their food could be useful to others, or a young man in the army keeps volunteering for the most dangerous missions or someone gives all his possessions away. Or people who go on hunger strike. At least some people would say that these present an ethical dilemma.
I see the dilemma now. There’s yourself and there’s the X. One has to choose 1. Most good people, being selfless, as I’m sure you very much are, choose X. A gedanken experiment should clear up the air for you. Imagine yourself here and X there. This won’t be difficult to imagine I suppose. To assist you let’s say X = \text{ your son}. Easy peasy or do you wish to change the subject? 
Is it better to regret something that you have done rather than something that you haven’t done? Sometimes it’s better to realize that you have done wrong somehow and regret that than it would be to speculate whether a situation or scenario could have been improved by your taking action when in reality you did nothing. But someone said something I deem clever in that the only thing needed for evil behaviour to prevail is for good people to do nothing to prevent it so i suggest regretting doing nothing can sometimes be better from a certain perspective. Any definitive answers to this conundrum? (A pistolis aimed directly at your head and you are obligated to be as honest and forthright as you possibly can be) so to speak..
Ethical concepts arose solely from social aspects. If we delve into the dilemma itself, we see that the conflict lies between a simple desire at the individual level and a desire that touches on the demands of society. Everything that arises from social life includes the interests of others, and this is what we call ethics.
At the level of the brain, the lesser evil and the greatest pleasure at the same time will prevail, and this will depend on the individual’s biology and experience (including the moral standards they have learned).