The moral dilemma presented here happened to the student’s friend, during his visit to Saudi Arabia, for a vacation. That country is known for its restrictive laws against women, with them not being able to travel or use certain public amenities without being accompanied by a male member of the family. The friend witnessed a situation, when an acquaintance of his was arguing with his sister about her desire to learn to drive a car. In Saudi Arabia, women have been allowed to drive a car since the 2018. However, despite the official law coming into place, progress has been slow, and there is a stigma towards women driving transport, which could amount to trouble.
The male acquaintance, her brother, argued that it would be dangerous to drive still, and that it would be better to wait until it becomes more socially acceptable. The friend was involved in this conversation, and was forced to pick a side. The dilemma involved between supporting the sister’s claim, despite it going against local cultural norms, with a potential to insult her brother and make her plight worse. The alternative was to support the brother and potentially squash the sister’s desire for independence. The option to not interfere was also present, but it would have amounted to withdrawing support from the woman, who was at a disadvantage due to Saudi culture.
A moral relativist would have approached the dilemma by inaction. Since their position stipulates that there are no moral constants in the universe, each and every person is entitled to their own subjective truth on the matter (Perez-Navarro, 2022). As such, neither the sister nor her brother hold an implicit high ground, meaning that there is no clear reason to support one side or the other (Rachels, 2019). In a way, both have good points, with the woman wanting to be able to drive a car, and the man pointing out that learning to do so right now would invite all sorts of issues from police and the government.
From the perspective of a cultural relativist, the morals of particular people are shaped by their culture. Therefore, what is considered moral for people that belong to a specific culture is moral for them (Österman, 2021). Between the two arguing parties, whoever would hold the higher ground based on cultural morality is, by definition, right. Since women driving is not yet seen as widely culturally-acceptable, the brother would be in the right, worrying about how the action would be perceived in the society, and trying to protect his sister. Being protective of women is another cultural trait in Saudi Arabia (Österman, 2021). That approach may fit in particular cultural contexts, but is criticized by thinkers who believe in the existence of universal moral norms, which supersede cultural interpretation. The belief that all are created equal is considered such a moral norm.
The friend ardently supported the sister, saying that “outdated and backwards cultural traditions should not decide what free people can or cannot do,” which greatly offended the brother. It resulted in him withdrawing support from the cause until an apology was given. The moral justification he gave for his actions is similar to that of Kant’s categoric imperative, that all people should stand up and speak out against injustice, no matter the context (Rachels, 2019). I do not believe their approach was right in terms of execution, as his ardent and heedless words only worsened the feud between the siblings, and brought neither to a desired conclusion.
The student believes that the objectively right thing to do was to support the sister’s desire for independence, while taking account of the cultural context. When standing up for someone, the objective should always be to benefit that person. If not, then it is self-gratification based on self-righteousness. The friend should have been more tactful and acknowledged the points that the brother was making, while pushing forward the idea that culture is not a static entity and is subject to change, bit by bit.
References
Österman, T. (2021). Cultural relativism and understanding difference. Language & Communication, 80, 124-135.
Pérez-Navarro, E. (2022). The way things go: Moral relativism and suspension of judgment. Philosophical Studies, 179(1), 49-64.
Rachels, J. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw Hill.