The Study Of Ethics And Philosophy Is One That Brings Many D

The Study Of Ethics And Philosophy Is One That Brings Many Different K

The study of ethics and philosophy involves exploring various moral frameworks and understanding how individuals and cultures determine what is right or wrong. This case study presents a complex ethical dilemma involving cultural practices, legal considerations, and professional responsibilities. A nurse confronting the decision to assist or refuse to participate in female circumcision raises significant questions about moral relativism, cultural norms, and the existence of objective moral truths. This analysis examines these issues in depth, applying diverse ethical perspectives to the scenario and critically evaluating their validity.

Paper For Above instruction

In the presented scenario, a nurse is faced with a morally and professionally challenging decision regarding the assistance in a female circumcision procedure performed by a surgeon from a different cultural background. The central ethical questions revolve around respecting cultural practices, legal constraints, and personal moral beliefs. Specifically, the perspectives of subjective moral relativism and cultural moral relativism offer contrasting approaches to evaluating the surgeon’s actions. Analyzing these perspectives, alongside the concept of objective moral truth, provides a comprehensive understanding of the ethical terrain.

Subjective Moral Relativism and Its Perspective

Subjective moral relativism posits that moral judgments are dependent on personal beliefs, feelings, and individual preferences. From this standpoint, what one person considers morally right, another may see as wrong, and there are no universal moral standards applicable to all individuals. Regarding the surgeon’s practice of female circumcision, a subjective relativist might argue that the morality of the procedure hinges on personal and cultural beliefs. If the surgeon personally believes that the procedure aligns with their cultural identity and professional duties, then their actions can be deemed morally acceptable within their own moral framework.

This perspective emphasizes moral tolerance, allowing individuals to hold different moral views without passing judgment. Therefore, the surgeon’s cultural background and personal convictions justify performing the procedure, provided it is consensual and within the legal boundaries of the jurisdiction. However, this approach creates potential conflicts when personal morals clash with international human rights standards, especially considering that the procedure is widely condemned for its physical and psychological harms.

Personally, I find merit in understanding that moral beliefs are often influenced by cultural contexts, but I do not agree entirely with subjective moral relativism. While respecting individual moral autonomy is essential, some actions—such as female genital mutilation—raise serious concerns about harm and rights violations. Relying solely on personal belief can justify practices that infringe upon the well-being and dignity of vulnerable individuals.

Cultural Moral Relativism and Its Perspective

Cultural moral relativism asserts that moral standards are rooted in cultural norms and practices. According to this view, what is morally acceptable in one culture might be taboo in another, and there are no universal morals transcending cultural differences. In the context of female circumcision, a cultural relativist might argue that the practice is a normative aspect of the surgeon’s cultural identity and tradition, hence morally justified within that society.

Supporters of cultural relativism contend that moral judgments should be made with cultural understanding and sensitivity, avoiding ethnocentric judgments that unfairly criticize other cultures. They emphasize respecting cultural diversity, including practices like female circumcision, which may hold significance for identity, tradition, and social cohesion in certain communities.

However, I oppose a purely cultural relativist stance in this context. While respecting cultural diversity is important, it should not come at the expense of individual rights and health. Numerous international organizations, including the World Health Organization, condemn female circumcision because of its harmful physical and psychological consequences. Therefore, cultural relativism risks justifying serious human rights violations under the guise of respecting tradition.

Critics argue that cultural relativism fosters moral complacency, allowing harmful practices to persist unchallenged under the pretext of cultural respect. It may hinder efforts to promote universal human rights and undermine moral progress that seeks to abolish practices detrimental to health and dignity.

Objective Moral Truths in This Scenario

The question of whether there exists an objective moral truth regarding the actions of the nurse and surgeon is central to ethical deliberation. An objective moral truth implies that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of individual opinions or cultural norms. From this perspective, many ethicists argue that practices like female circumcision, especially involving minors and causing harm, are morally unjustifiable regardless of cultural acceptance.

Modern bioethics and human rights frameworks support the existence of objective moral truths, emphasizing principles such as non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. These principles suggest that performing harmful procedures on minors, who cannot consent freely, violates fundamental moral standards aimed at protecting individuals from harm.

In the context of the scenario, the nurse’s moral duty aligns with these principles. Assisting in a procedure that inflicts harm and violates the girl’s physical integrity conflicts with the ethical obligation to prevent harm and promote well-being. Therefore, there is a compelling argument for an objective moral stance that condemns female circumcision in this case, regardless of cultural or individual beliefs.

However, opponents of moral objectivism might argue that moral truths are culturally contingent and that imposing one standard across diverse societies risks cultural imperialism. Despite these criticisms, the consensus among many ethical theories supports that certain acts, such as mutilation of minors for non-therapeutic reasons, are inherently wrong and unethical.

Conclusion

The ethical dilemma faced by the nurse involves navigating conflicting moral frameworks and cultural sensitivities. Subjective moral relativism allows personal moral judgments but can lead to moral ambiguity regarding harmful practices. Cultural relativism emphasizes respecting cultural norms but risks endorsing practices that violate fundamental human rights. An objective moral perspective highlights the importance of universal principles that protect individuals from harm and uphold human dignity. In this scenario, the most ethically sound position aligns with rejecting participation in the procedure based on the harm it causes and the violation of universal moral standards. Ethical decision-making in such cases should prioritize safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of vulnerable individuals while considering cultural sensitivities through an informed, yet morally firm, perspective.

References

• Benatar, D. (2007). Abortion and the obligation to prevent harm. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(2), 104–107.
• Cohen, J. (2015). Moral relativism and cultural practices. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(3), 453–472.
• Delee, J. (2008). Female genital mutilation: Human rights and cultural nuances. Journal of Health Ethics, 6(1), 45–59.
• Gordon, R. (2013). Ethical dilemmas in clinical practice: The case of female circumcision. Bioethics, 27(4), 213–220.
• Hunt, P. (2015). Human rights and cultural practices: The debate over female genital cutting. International Journal of Human Rights, 19(7), 920–932.
• Kaswan, S. L. (2019). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 33, 1–30.
• Mire, S. (Director). (1995). Fire Eyes: Female Circumcision [Documentary]. Filmakers Library.
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• World Health Organization. (2016). Female genital mutilation and cutting: A policy brief. WHO Press.
• Zubair, S. (2014). Navigating cultural practices and ethical principles. International Journal of Medical Ethics, 2(3), 155–164.