Moral Dilemma Relating to Cultural Diversity and Multiculturalism
What exactly was the situation? What was the crux of the problem?
In most cases, police departments face ethical quandaries. For example, after hearing about Peter’s Brown case involving multiple sexual offenses, female detectives find it challenging to work efficiently. Furthermore, even while on duty, Brown appeared to speak suggestively in a way that indicated a sexual interest in women. In one instance, Peter’s close friend claimed that Peter spanked her while hugging them. But, after realizing her colleague was married, Peter changed his demeanor by apologizing.
On the other hand, Peter is known in the police department for carrying out his detective duties with outstanding professionalism. Peter is regarded as an expert in his field, even though the police department describes him as an invaluable source. Given his track record of sexual offense cases, the police department faces an ethical quandary of whether to lose such a credible and fastidious undercover agent or tolerate his alleged sexual offenses.
Do you need an original “Moral Dilemma Relating to Cultural Diversity and Multiculturalism” copy? Reach us.
According to a subjective moral relativist, what is the correct approach to the dilemma? Why would a relativist say such a thing?
Moral relativism helps people see moral judgments as subject to a specific point of view (Oppong, 2019). As a result, it implies no set of principles or reference points to describe different people’s morality. It will be immoral, for example, for some who believe excessive consumption is wrong to get drunk (Green, 2020). As a result, this viewpoint may regard Peter as completely innocent because, according to the subjective moral relativist viewpoint, a person is innocent until proven guilty; thus, Peter is currently not guilty of any sexual offense. Assume a subjective moral relativist analyzes Peter’s several historical sexual crimes and sexually suggestive talks and gestures. In that case, it will be concluded that his actions are a ticking time bomb that endangers his colleagues, and immediate action is required.
According to a cultural relativist, what is the correct approach to the dilemma? Why would a relativist say such a thing? Is that the correct approach?
Cultural relativism, rather than understanding other groups’ cultural traditions, judges people based on their values, practices, and beliefs in that cultural context (Green, 2020). Ethnocentrism exemplifies cultural relativism. It means some people believe their culture is superior to others (). For example, some cultural relativists believe that monogamous marriage is morally correct (Oppong, 2019). A relativist would regard Peter as innocent because of his indispensability.
Similarly, a radical feminist could condemn Peter and take immediate legal action against him. As a result, in our case, it is critical to understand the practices of both the complainants and the department before passing judgment because cultural relativism can lead to discrimination in one direction. On the other hand, it fosters social cohesion among members of the same society (Oppong, 2019).
What did you, the person in the situation, decide to do? What was their moral justification? Is that a morally correct approach?
By identifying the issue, any person caught in a moral quandary can make an informed decision that satisfies neither party completely. In this case, Peter would either be allowed to continue with his detective duties after the problem is identified or be fired due to the allegations and risk of relapse. Another approach would be to list the factors that will be used to resolve the problem. This will support the evidence problem and classify the case as civil or criminal (Zardiashvili et al., 2020). Finally, plausible causes are defined after an arbitrator investigates all potential actions.
Was there an objective moral truth (the objectively right thing to do) in this situation? What is your reasoning?
As one of the primary objective moral truths, Peter could be referred to a therapist to prevent a possible relapse of reoffending. Because the suspect is not guilty, relieving him of his responsibilities is wrong and unjustifiable because he is still brilliant at them.
Similar Post: Health Statistics
References
Green, A. (2020). Interaction Goals Influence Our View of the World: Mode of Interaction Effects on Moral Truth Perceptions (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale).
Oppong, S. (2019). When the ethical is unethical, and the unethical is ethical: Cultural Relativism in Ethical Decision-Making. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 18-28. Retrieved from: https://journals.pan.pl/Content/109945/PDF/PPB+1-19+3-Oppong.pdf
Zardiashvili, L., Bieger, J., Dechesne, F., & Dignum, V. (2020). AI Ethics for Law Enforcement. Delphi-Interdisciplinary Review of Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 179-185. Retrieved from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/287723086.pdf
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
propose a scenario where you or someone you know is confronted with a moral dilemma relating to cultural diversity and multiculturalism. It cannot be the same as what has been covered in the week one discussion.
Moral Dilemma Relating to Cultural Diversity and Multiculturalism
Cultural diversity refers to religious, sexual, racial, and other forms of social difference. A moral dilemma is a situation in which one must decide between two or more options that involve seemingly ethical and 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, the person confronting the dilemma, decide to do? What moral justification did 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.