ETHC 445 Week 7 Course Project Milestone – Final Paper

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Abortion

Abortion remains a contentious issue in contemporary society. Supporters argue that a woman has autonomy over her own body, allowing her to make choices about her reproductive health. A compelling argument from the pro-choice perspective is the belief that an embryo does not possess the characteristics of a baby, such as the ability to think or feel. Conversely, opponents of abortion contend that it constitutes a violation of human rights, as it effectively ends the life of an unborn child, equating the act with murder.

The Moral Dilemma

Maria, an 18-year-old woman, navigated the complexities of modern dating through a dating app, leading to sexual encounters with several men. Upon discovering her pregnancy, she feared her parents’ reaction, particularly their strong religious beliefs which deemed abortion a sin. With no clear knowledge of the father and feeling overwhelmed by societal expectations, Maria contemplated abortion. After seeking the support of a friend, she visited an abortion clinic, where the doctor prescribed a regimen of pills to terminate the pregnancy. While taking the first pill, Maria experienced severe pain but found that her fear of parental disapproval overshadowed her physical discomfort. Eventually, she opted for a surgical abortion due to ineffective medication. Following the procedure, Maria experienced deep guilt and depression, prioritizing her public image over her mental health recovery. This situation underscores the potential health risks associated with illegal abortions and highlights the emotional turmoil that can accompany such decisions.

Ethical Considerations

In determining the most ethical course of action for Maria, two philosophical theories provide insight: ethical egoism and social contract theory. Ethical egoism posits that individuals should act in their own self-interest (Rachels, 2018). This perspective suggests that a woman’s personal interests should dictate her choices regarding abortion, overriding external pressures, including parental religious beliefs. Thus, an ethical egoist would support Maria’s decision to terminate her pregnancy if she believes it serves her best interests.

In contrast, social contract theory emphasizes the obligations individuals have within society. It suggests that a mother has a duty to sustain the life of the fetus, which, despite lacking significant moral characteristics, is still recognized as a human being with rights (Stark, 2019). Advocates of this theory argue that abortion infringes upon these rights, viewing it as morally unacceptable. According to this perspective, Maria’s situation illustrates a conflict between individual desires and societal expectations, particularly those shaped by religious beliefs.

The healthcare professionals involved in Maria’s abortion must navigate their ethical responsibilities as outlined by the American Nurses Association (ANA) Code of Ethics. This code mandates that nurses provide unbiased care to all patients, regardless of personal beliefs (ANA, 2001). Therefore, even if healthcare providers personally oppose abortion, they are ethically obligated to respect Maria’s autonomy and fulfill her request.

Lara Denis (2008) discusses the evolving Kantian perspective on abortion, suggesting that while it raises moral questions, it can be deemed permissible under certain circumstances. Kantian ethics emphasizes a woman’s autonomy and her right to make decisions regarding her body, particularly when faced with the challenges of pregnancy. Furthermore, proponents of reproductive rights argue that embryos should not be equated with fully developed humans, as they lack consciousness and rationality (Manninen, 2014). While pro-life advocates assert that fetuses are human beings, this viewpoint does not negate the moral considerations surrounding a woman’s right to choose. I believe that, although abortion raises moral dilemmas, it is crucial to respect a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, regardless of external pressures or religious beliefs.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

According to Aristotle (1999), virtue is defined as a state that finds balance between excess and deficiency, guided by reason. In Maria’s case, her moral dilemmas demonstrate both selfishness and courage. Despite the societal and familial pressures, she displayed bravery in choosing abortion to prioritize her well-being over the potential judgment from others. By making this decision, she exemplified a commitment to her personal needs and happiness, resisting the constraints imposed by her religious upbringing.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism encompasses various principles such as welfarism, consequentialism, and impartiality (Felzmann, 2017). In Maria’s situation, if her decision to abort leads to greater happiness and welfare, then it aligns with utilitarian ideals. This framework does not assign intrinsic value to the life of an embryo, thereby supporting a mother’s choice. Thus, a utilitarian perspective would advocate for Maria’s abortion as it contributes positively to her overall well-being and restores her sense of stability.

Natural Law Theory

Natural law ethics requires consideration of divine laws when making moral decisions. While some argue that abortion should be categorically prohibited, even in cases of health risks, incest, or rape (Irving, 2000), I contend that women should ultimately have the authority to make decisions regarding their bodies. Women must have the freedom to choose what is best for them, without interference from external authorities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, my perspective aligns more closely with the pro-choice stance, supporting a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. I advocate for the utilitarian view, which prioritizes a woman’s autonomy and decision-making in matters of personal health and well-being, paralleling the ethical egoist perspective.

References

American Nurses Association (ANA). (2001). Code of ethics for nurses. American Nurses Association, Washington, D.C.

Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (H. Rackham, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Denis, L. (2008). Animality and agency: A Kantian approach to abortion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(1), 117-137. Retrieved from Wiley Online Library.

Felzmann, H. (2017). Utilitarianism as an approach to ethical decision making in health care. Retrieved from SpringerLink.

Irving, D.N. (2000). Abortion: Correct application of natural law theory. The Linacre Quarterly, 67(1), 45-61. Retrieved from https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2215&context=lnq

ETHC 445 Week 7 Course Project Milestone – Final Paper

Manninen, B. A. (2014). A Kantian defense of abortion rights with respect for intrauterine life. Diametros, 39, 70-92. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.39.2014.565

Rachels, J. (2018). The elements of moral philosophy. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://ambassadored.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781260213003/cfi/6/28!/4@0:0

Stark, P. (2019). Does an unborn human have rights? Appearance, ability, and attitude don’t justify lethal discrimination. Retrieved from MCCL.ORG

ETHC 445 Week 6 Discussion: Applying Rand’s Objectivism

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Discussion: Applying Rand’s Objectivism

Required Resources

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

• Textbook: Chapter 8
• Lesson
• Minimum of 1 scholarly source

Introduction

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism has been criticized by some as a doctrine promoting self-interested selfishness. The four key epistemological principles of her philosophy are as follows:

1. Metaphysics: The objective reality of the world and its objects.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the sole means of acquiring knowledge.
3. Ethics: Self-interest not only describes behavior but also prescribes how individuals ought to act.
4. Politics: A system of capitalism that emphasizes the actions of individuals motivated by self-interest.

In the early 1960s, a student inquired of an Objectivist spokesperson about the fate of the impoverished in an Objectivist society. The spokesperson replied, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.” This response aligns with what one might infer Ayn Rand would assert in her works, such as Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

Initial Post Instructions

For the initial post, address the following:

• What conclusions can you draw from the spokesperson’s answer?
• Analyze the idea that Objectivism, similar to moral relativism, stands in opposition to ethics, and provide justification for your viewpoint.
• What aspect of Rand’s teachings supports your conclusion?

When making decisions, it is crucial to consider what we believe is right while also acknowledging the perspectives of others. Maintaining high moral standards regarding our choices is essential. Although we may not always act in self-interest, we should remain open-minded and accepting of different viewpoints. Rand states, “Man must choose his actions, values, and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man – in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life” (Introduction to Objectivism, n.d.). She posits that decisions should be made based on one’s own best interests, potentially disregarding the adverse impacts on others. While this perspective does not entirely align with my beliefs, I respect individual autonomy.

The spokesperson’s assertion that “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped” suggests a profound sense of personal freedom to act in accordance with one’s moral beliefs. It implies that if you choose to assist others, you are aligning with what you perceive as the right action in that context. Conversely, opting not to help indicates a belief that doing so is not in your best interest. Thus, individuals navigate their decisions based on what serves their self-interest while also reflecting their moral compass.

References

Chamberlain University. (2018). Lesson 6: Ethics within human relationships. Retrieved from https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/34375/pages/week-6-lesson-ethics-within-human-relationships?module_item_id=4086714

ETHC 445 Week 6 Discussion: Applying Rand’s Objectivism

Introduction to Objectivism. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.aynrand.org/ideas/philosophy

ETHC 445 Week 5 Course Project Milestone: Annotated Bibliography

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Introduction

Abortion is commonly defined as a method to terminate an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Over the years, this procedure has remained a contentious topic, sparking debate among various groups. Pro-abortion advocates argue for reproductive rights, while anti-abortion groups actively protest, often outside clinics such as Planned Parenthood. A landmark case in this ongoing debate is Roe v. Wade, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that a human fetus does not have legal protections, thereby making abortion legal (Ruggiero, 1992). Recently, the topic has gained renewed attention as several states have enacted laws making abortion illegal, with some proposing penalties, including jail time for women who experience miscarriages, even when unintentional. Consequently, many women are resorting to unsafe methods to obtain abortions, resulting in increased health risks and fatalities.

A striking aspect of this issue is that the push for stricter abortion laws often comes from men, individuals who do not possess reproductive organs. Some lawmakers are even eliminating exceptions for abortions in cases of incest or rape, mandating that women must carry such pregnancies to term. This notion raises ethical concerns about bodily autonomy, as it reflects a broader issue of women’s rights and the control they have over their own bodies. The shift in perspective regarding abortion raises questions about morality, as evidenced by differing opinions on its ethical implications. As noted by Ruggiero (1992), “On the other hand, abortion used to be moral but now it is immoral.” This contradiction is underscored by the opposing view that if an action was once deemed acceptable, it should remain so if it is not inherently wrong.

Thesis

This paper aims to elucidate the paradox surrounding abortion, advocating for its continued legality as a choice for women, emphasizing that men should not influence decisions about women’s bodies, and highlighting the negative consequences of criminalizing abortion.

Annotations

References

Amnesty International. (2019, June 11). 10 things you need to know about abortion laws in the US. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/06/abortion-laws-in-the-us10-things-you-need-to-know/

Crossley, M. (2015, August 1). Normalizing disability in families. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/jlme.12236

Manninen, B. A. (2015). The replaceable fetus: A reflection on abortion and disability. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3239/3831

McKinney, C. (2016). Selective abortion as moral failure? Revaluation of the feminist case for reproductive rights in a disability context. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3885/4213

ETHC 445 Week 5 Course Project Milestone: Annotated Bibliography

Nuccetelli, S. (2017, March 28). Abortion for fetal defects: Two current arguments. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-017-9765-2

Ruggiero, V. (1992). Roe v. Wade: A review of the legal implications. Journal of Health Law, 25(2), 345-360.

ETHC 445 Week 4 Greater Good Analysis

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

INTRODUCTION

This paper examines the ethical considerations involved in determining which of three patients should receive a kidney transplant. The patients come from diverse backgrounds and hold different religious beliefs. Their ages range from 11 to 55 years, presenting a variety of life circumstances that complicate the decision-making process regarding organ allocation.

WHO SHOULD GET THE KIDNEY?

Among the three patients evaluated, Patient Two emerges as the most suitable candidate for the kidney transplant. This 55-year-old divorcee has two children and faces a dire situation; without a transplant, she is likely to die within a month. The urgency of her condition makes her case particularly compelling.

REASONS FOR CHOOSING

The choice of Patient Two is largely driven by her significantly higher chances of survival compared to the other patients. Furthermore, if she does not receive the transplant, her chances of survival diminish rapidly. In contrast, Patient One has the financial means to seek a transplant elsewhere, as he has access to one million dollars. Patient Three, while also in a precarious situation, has a slightly longer timeframe of two months before her condition becomes critical, allowing her to wait for a potential future donor.

ETHICS OF EGOISM

The ethical framework most relevant to this scenario is that of ethical egoism. Patient Three exemplifies this concept, having received two prior transplants that prioritized her interests. Her decisions have seemingly disregarded her parents’ religious beliefs and cultural values, which may oppose organ donation (Rachels, 2018).

UTILITARIANISM IN THE SCENARIO

From a utilitarian perspective, morality is grounded in the equal consideration of everyone’s happiness. Actions are deemed morally right if they foster overall happiness. However, utilitarianism has limitations, particularly in this scenario where only one kidney is available. This scarcity necessitates a decision that may contravene utilitarian ideals, ultimately favoring the candidate who presents the best chance for successful transplantation.

HOBBES’ ARGUMENT

Thomas Hobbes posits that individuals may resort to violence to attain their desires (Messerly, 2015). Although our kidney transplant scenario does not involve overt violence, it does present conflicts among decision-makers regarding the allocation of the transplant. The dynamics of power could lead to a situation where the stronger candidate might be favored, unless weaker parties—such as the decision-makers—unite to advocate for a more equitable resolution.

CONCLUSION

Ethical decisions regarding organ transplants are inherently variable, influenced by individual perspectives and societal norms. The task of identifying the most deserving candidate for the kidney transplant among the three patients raises significant moral questions. Society has established frameworks and laws to address these situations, aiming to mitigate favoritism and ensure a fair process.

REFERENCES

Jonsen, A. R. (2012). The ethics of organ transplantation: A brief history. AMA Journal of Ethics, 14(3), 264-268.

Messerly, J. (2015, May 1). Summary of Hobbes’ political and ethical theories. Retrieved from Reason and Meaning: https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/05/01/hobbes-political-and-ethical-theories-in-two-pages/

ETHC 445 Week 4 Greater Good Analysis

Rachels, J. (2018). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). [VitalSource Bookshelf 9.2.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9781260213003

ETHC 445 Week 3 Course Project Milestone – Abortion

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Abortion: A Moral Controversy

The moral controversy under discussion is that of abortion. The focus will be on the perspectives of two philosophical viewpoints: ethical egoism and social contract ethics. This discussion aims to present these viewpoints impartially, while also considering the ethical dilemmas raised by abortion in modern society. As medical technology progresses, so do medical procedures that help individuals manage illnesses, including abortion—a process used to terminate pregnancies. Abortions may be carried out surgically or through medication (Gugliotta, 1996). Despite medical advances, the morality of abortion remains a contentious issue. With approximately half a million abortions occurring annually in the United States (Rachels, 2018), the debate over the ethics of abortion persists. Pro-life advocates often frame abortion as “murder,” arguing that it denies an unborn child the chance at life (Rachels, 2018). Meanwhile, those who support pro-choice perspectives emphasize the individual’s right to make decisions about their own body (Rachels, 2018).

Ethical Egoism and Abortion

Ethical egoism centers on the principle of self-interest. According to Rachels (2018), ethical egoists believe that the fundamental principle guiding human behavior is the pursuit of one’s own best interests. This view suggests that decisions, including the decision to have an abortion, are morally justified if they serve the individual’s self-interest. In the context of abortion, an ethical egoist would likely support a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy if she believes it aligns with her own needs or desires, regardless of moral arguments that frame abortion as “murder.” The principle of self-interest supports the individual’s autonomy, even if this autonomy conflicts with the broader societal belief in protecting unborn life.

Common sense, as discussed by Rachels (2018), offers an additional layer of complexity to the ethical egoist’s stance. Common sense emphasizes the importance of truth, keeping promises, and not causing harm to others. Pro-life advocates argue that abortion violates the principle of “do no harm” because it terminates a life. However, an ethical egoist might counter that the decision to avoid harm to oneself, such as financial instability or an inability to care for a child, justifies the act of abortion.

Social Contract Ethics and Abortion

In contrast to ethical egoism, social contract ethics focuses on collective agreement and societal rules. According to Rachels (2018), a social contract ethicist believes that moral rules are valid when rational individuals agree to them for the sake of maintaining social order. In the context of abortion, this perspective can lead to varying conclusions. A social contract ethicist may support abortion if society deems it necessary for controlling overpopulation or protecting the health and well-being of individuals. On the other hand, in a society facing depopulation, a social contract ethicist might oppose abortion as a threat to societal survival.

McLean et al. (2019) highlight another ethical dilemma—maternal death during abortion. This dilemma creates tension between personal obligations and societal norms. For instance, a mother who is unable to financially care for a fourth child may feel personally justified in seeking an abortion. However, the risk of maternal death complicates the moral decision, as the potential harm to the mother could outweigh her financial concerns. A social contract ethicist would argue that in such cases, the moral obligation to protect the life of the mother and her existing children should take precedence over societal norms surrounding abortion.

Ethical Considerations in Nursing and Abortion

The ethical debates surrounding abortion also extend to healthcare professionals. The American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics emphasizes patient care as the top priority, regardless of personal beliefs (Zahedi et al., 2013). This code suggests that if a pregnancy threatens a patient’s life, abortion may be morally justified to save the mother, even if it means sacrificing the unborn child. Such a decision aligns with the ethical principle of prioritizing patient health and well-being over personal or societal beliefs.

References

Denis, L. (2007). Abortion and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 37(4), 547–579.

Gugliotta. (1996). Ethical dilemma of medical abortion. Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), 155(1), 18–19.

Kain, P. (2009). Kant’s Defense of Human Moral Status. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 47(1), 59–101. https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.0.0083

McLean, Desalegn, D. N., Blystad, A., & Miljeteig, I. (2019). When the law makes doors slightly open: Ethical dilemmas among abortion service providers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 60–60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0396-4

ETHC 445 Week 3 Course Project Milestone – Abortion

Rachels, J. (2018). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education (US).

Zahedi, F., Sanjari, M., Aala, M., Peymani, M., Aramesh, K., Parsapour, A., Maddah, S. S. B., Cheraghi, M. A., Mirzabeigi, G. H., Larijani, B., & Dastgerdi, M. V. (2013). The Code of Ethics for Nurses. Iran J Public Health.

ETHC 445 Week 2 Religion and Ethics

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Religion and Ethics

This analysis will evaluate two distinct ethical dilemmas, each deeply intertwined with religious beliefs. The first scenario involves an 18-year-old lesbian woman whose sexual orientation contradicts her religious teachings. Her ethical dilemma revolves around whether she should inform her parents about her sexual orientation. The second scenario concerns a couple who lost a child to a rare disease. They are now sterile but wish to have another child through in vitro fertilization (IVF), a practice prohibited by their religion. The primary goal of this evaluation is to explore the intersection between religion and ethics in these scenarios and to determine both the ethical and unethical courses of action.

Ethics and Religion: The Lesbian Dilemma

Different cultures and religions hold varying opinions on same-sex relationships. In many societies, homosexuality is condemned. In this scenario, an 18-year-old lesbian is contemplating whether to reveal her sexual orientation to her parents. According to the Christian faith, particularly in the Bible, homosexuality is forbidden. Romans 1:26-27 states that women who engage in unnatural relationships, just as men do, should face punishment (Gnuse, 2015). Ethical decisions are influenced by personal moral beliefs, and in many religious contexts, morality is derived from teachings of sacred texts and religious leaders (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Despite being a lesbian, the woman likely still values her religious upbringing, creating an internal conflict between her sexual identity and her faith.

Ethical and Unethical Paths for the Lesbian Woman

The ethical choice for the woman would be to be honest with her parents about her sexual orientation. Her willingness to consider this step indicates that it has been troubling her, and revealing the truth might bring her peace. The unethical path would involve lying to herself and her family by pretending to be straight. Different ethical perspectives would approach her dilemma differently. Emotivists might advise her either to embrace her sexual identity or to remain faithful to her religious beliefs based on their personal convictions. Natural law ethicists, on the other hand, might encourage her to seek guidance from God and her parents, as everything is believed to have a purpose. From the standpoint of divine command ethics, she has a moral duty to follow God’s commands, which would mean adhering to her religious teachings (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Ultimately, the decision lies with the woman, but it is probable that she will choose honesty for her well-being.

Ethics and Religion: The IVF Dilemma

In the case of Joe and Mary, they wish to have another child after losing their first one to a rare disease. However, they are sterile and their religion, Catholicism, forbids IVF, as it is considered immoral due to the unnatural method of conception. The Catholic Church teaches that life should be conceived through natural intercourse, and any deviation from this is seen as immoral. Catholicism places significant value on human life, opposes abortion, and believes pregnancy should be protected from the moment of conception. Moreover, Catholics are encouraged to have children as a fulfillment of God’s commandment (Sallam & Sallam, 2016). Joe and Mary face the difficult choice of either abiding by their religious beliefs or pursuing IVF to fulfill their desire for a child.

Ethical and Unethical Paths for the IVF Couple

Ethically, Joe and Mary should follow their personal values, which include their deep desire to have children. This might mean making an exception to their religious beliefs and pursuing IVF. The unethical path would be to suppress their desires and allow the Church to dictate how they should approach parenthood. A divine command ethicist would argue that IVF should be avoided because it goes against God’s will, suggesting that if God wanted them to have another child, He would bless them with one naturally. Emotivists, based on their personal beliefs, might either support the couple’s decision to undergo IVF or urge them to stay true to their Catholic faith. Natural law ethicists would likely recommend prayer and reflection, acknowledging that science and medicine exist to assist people in cases like this, implying that IVF could be an acceptable path (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). Ultimately, the couple must decide what feels right for them, balancing their religious convictions with their desire for another child.

Conclusion

In both scenarios, the ultimate ethical decision comes down to what feels right for the individuals involved. While religious teachings often provide a framework for moral decision-making, personal ethics and values play a significant role. Making a decision that conflicts with religious doctrine does not necessarily equate to being morally wrong. Instead, ethical decisions should be guided by a balance of personal values, religious beliefs, and what feels most authentic and right to the individual.

References

Gnuse, R. K. (2015, May 1). Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality. Biblical Theology Bulletin, 45(2), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146107915577097

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

ETHC 445 Week 2 Religion and Ethics

Sallam, H. N., & Sallam, N. H. (2016). Religious aspects of assisted reproduction. Facts, Views & Vision in ObGyn, 8(1), 33–48. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5096425/

Table Representation of Ethical and Unethical Paths:

ETHC 445 Week 1 Cultural Relativism and Moral Action

Name

Chamberlain University

ETHC-445 Principles of Ethics

Prof. Name

Date

Week 1 Assignment: Cultural Relativism and Moral Action

In clinical settings, medical professionals frequently encounter ethical dilemmas, often arising from cultural and religious differences. Ethical dilemmas can be challenging for healthcare workers, particularly when there is tension between their personal beliefs or professional ethics and the views of their colleagues or patients. As McLennon et al. (2013) state, “For nurses, ethical dilemmas may occur when there is tension between a nurse’s ability to do what is perceived to be right in a given situation and the views of other healthcare providers.” It is crucial for nurses to approach these dilemmas ethically and professionally, ensuring that the needs of their patients are met in a respectful and considerate manner.

One personal experience of mine highlights the importance of understanding cultural relativism in addressing moral dilemmas. A high school friend of mine, who practices Hinduism, visited my home with some other friends. As a Muslim, my religious customs differ from hers. While we all ate together, she refrained from eating or drinking. According to her cultural beliefs, she could not consume food in the home of someone from a different religion. Though she was clearly hungry, she chose not to eat, staying true to her religious principles. In this situation, subjective moralism, which emphasizes personal judgment in determining right and wrong, suggests that my friend’s actions were justified because they were consistent with her own beliefs. As subjective moral relativism posits, “what is right or wrong is decided by the individual.” Therefore, from her perspective, her decision was morally sound.

In contrast, cultural relativism holds that right and wrong are defined by societal or communal norms. In this instance, a cultural moralist might argue that my friend’s actions were appropriate because they aligned with her cultural values. Lynch (2019) explains that “Cultural relativism seeks to explain cultures internally, by reference to its own frames of meaning, rather than by comparison with other cultures or standards.” Even though my own cultural customs dictate that a guest should not leave my home without having food or water, I respected her beliefs. As Rachels and Rachels (2019) note, “Different cultures have different moral codes, and those moral codes determine right and wrong within that society.” This moral principle guided my actions as I accepted her decision despite our differing views.

While I believe there was an objective moral truth in this scenario, I also recognize that my friend’s decision was based on her cultural and religious beliefs. I respected her right to follow those beliefs, even though, from my perspective, she could have at least had water. Her choice was ultimately a reflection of her commitment to her cultural values, which I honored despite our differences.

Table 1: Cultural Relativism and Moral Perspectives in the Scenario

References

Lynch, W. T. (2019). Between Kin Selection and Cultural Relativism: Cultural Evolution and the Origin of Inequality. Perspectives on Science, 27(2), 278–315. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00308

ETHC 445 Week 1 Cultural Relativism and Moral Action

McLennon, S. M., Uhrich, M., Lasiter, S., Chamness, A. R., & Helft, P. R. (2013). Oncology Nurses’ Narratives About Ethical Dilemmas and Prognosis-Related Communication in Advanced Cancer Patients. Cancer Nursing, 36(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncc.0b013e31825f4dc8

Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education.