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?

Cultural relativism and moral action | Fundamentals of Nursing

Scenario: A friend of mine was hired to manage a small team of customer service representatives for an international company that sells clothing online. The team members were from different parts of the world, and each one had their own unique way of communicating with customers. My friend noticed that some team members had accents that were difficult for customers to understand, and they were getting lower ratings and negative feedback as a result. She had to decide whether to provide coaching to these team members to help them improve their communication skills or to hire new team members with better English language skills.

Dilemma: The dilemma involved whether to provide coaching to team members with accents or to hire new team members with better language skills.

Subjective moral relativist perspective: A subjective moral relativist would argue that the right approach is whatever my friend believes to be right for her and her team. This relativist would say that there is no objective right or wrong answer to this dilemma, and that the decision should be based solely on my friend’s personal beliefs and values.

Cultural relativist perspective: A cultural relativist would argue that the right approach is to understand and respect the cultural differences of the team members. This relativist would say that the team members’ accents are a reflection of their unique cultural backgrounds and should be accepted and celebrated, rather than criticized or penalized.

Approach correctness: While both perspectives have their merits, the cultural relativist approach is more appropriate in this situation. It is important to understand and respect cultural differences in a multicultural team and to avoid imposing one culture’s norms and values on another. Providing coaching to help team members improve their language skills is a reasonable approach, but only if it is done with cultural sensitivity and respect.

Decision and moral justification: My friend decided to provide coaching to the team members with accents, but only after consulting with them to ensure that they were comfortable with the approach. She also made an effort to celebrate the team members’ cultural backgrounds and encourage their unique contributions to the team. Her moral justification was that providing coaching was necessary to improve the team’s overall performance and to help the team members achieve their full potential, while still respecting their cultural differences.

Moral correctness: Her approach was morally correct as it showed respect for the cultural diversity of the team while also addressing the need for improved communication skills. She also sought the team members’ input, demonstrating a willingness to listen and consider their perspectives.

Objective moral truth: In this situation, there is no objective moral truth. The right approach depends on the specific context, cultural background, and personal beliefs of the individuals involved. However, it is important to consider the impact of the decision on all team members, both individually and collectively, and to make decisions that are fair and respectful to everyone.