Cultural Relativism and Moral Action

Cultural Relativism and Moral Action

Scenario

I was a social worker at a local community center that provides services to a diverse population, including refugees from various countries. One day, a refugee family from a conservative cultural background came to the center seeking assistance. The family consisted of a husband, wife, and their teenage daughter. The daughter, Sarah, confided in me that she was being forced into an arranged marriage with a much older man from their community. She was terrified and did not want to go through with it, but she felt pressured by her family and cultural expectations.

Dilemma

The dilemma involved respecting the cultural practices and beliefs of Sarah’s family while also upholding the principles of individual autonomy, human rights, and gender equality. On one hand, respecting cultural diversity means acknowledging and honoring different cultural traditions and values. On the other hand, promoting human rights and gender equality required intervention to protect Sarah from a potentially harmful and oppressive situation.

Subjective Moral Relativist Perspective

For this scenario, a subjective moral relativist would dispute that the correct approach to the predicament is contingent on the cultural context and personal beliefs. The relativist would stress that what is considered morally right or wrong is subjective and varies from one culture to another (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). In this case, they might argue that since arranged marriages are accepted and even expected in some cultures, intervening would be imposing one’s own values onto others, which could be considered ethnocentric and disrespectful.

Cultural Relativist Perspective

On the other hand, in regards to a cultural relativist would most probably support the action of respecting the cultural practices and beliefs of Sarah’s family. The relativist would contend that every culture has established its own unique set of norms and ideals, and what may seem morally wrong from an outsider’s perspective may be perfectly acceptable within the cultural context (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). They might argue that intervening in the family’s decision would be culturally insensitive and could lead to unintended consequences or backlash. In my perspective, this approach is incorrect because it encourages tolerance of actions that are outright wrong against human beings.

Decision and Moral Justification

After careful deliberation on the matter, I decided to intervene and provide support to Sarah by connecting her with resources such as legal aid, counseling, and shelters for individuals facing forced marriage. My moral justification is based on objective moral truths and the principle of human rights, particularly the right to autonomy and self-determination (Kanarek, 2013). I am of the opinion that everyone ought to have the freedom to make choices regarding their own lives, free from coercion or oppression. While I respect cultural diversity, I cannot condone practices that violate fundamental human rights.

Objective Moral Truth

On the question of whether this situation has an objective moral truth, the answer is a definite yes. From a moral realist perspective, which I hold, there are universal moral principles that must be applied regardless of cultural differences, such as the principle of human dignity and the right to autonomy. Marrying anyone off, especially when they do not want to, and only because culture demands it, is a direct violation of human rights. It also includes issues society has been fighting against for centuries, like gender inequality. Universal moral principles are a necessity because the truth is some cultural traditions are barbaric, and maybe they did serve a purpose at one time in the past; however, the world has changed, and it is only right to review these traditions so that they are fair and just.

References

Kanarek, J. (2013). Critiquing cultural relativism. The Intellectual Standard, 2(2), 1. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/tis/vol2/iss2/1

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2012). The elements of moral philosophy 7e. McGraw Hill.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Instructions
For this assignment propose a scenario where you or someone you know are confronted with a moral dilemma relating to cultural diversity and multiculturalism. It cannot be the same as what was covered in the week one discussion.

Cultural Relativism and Moral Action

Cultural diversity refers to religious, sexual, racial, and other forms of social difference. A moral dilemma is a situation in which one must make a decision between two or more options such that the options involve seemingly ethical and/or unethical conduct. Address the following questions:

What was the situation? What did the dilemma involve?
What would a subjective moral relativist say is the right approach to the dilemma? Why would that kind of relativist say that?
What would a cultural relativist say is the right approach to the dilemma? Why would that kind of relativist say that? Is that approach correct?
What did you or the person confronting the dilemma decide to do? What moral justification did you or they give? Is that approach morally correct?
Was there an objective moral truth (the objectively right thing to do) in this situation? Why or why not?
Remember, the dilemma should be detailed with description and dialogue. Regard the questions as requirements. This is an essay, so rather than simply providing a list of brief answers to questions, provide an in-depth reflection regarding a difficult ethical situation..