Full Answer Section

The Dilemma:

• Respect for Family: Sarah feels a deep sense of loyalty and obligation towards her family. Disobeying her parents’ wishes would cause significant emotional distress and potentially damage her relationship with them.
• Love and Personal Autonomy: On the other hand, Sarah believes in the right to choose her own life partner and pursue her own happiness. Denying her love for David would mean sacrificing her personal autonomy and potentially lifelong happiness.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Sarah understands and respects her family’s cultural values, but she also believes in the importance of intercultural understanding and acceptance.

Subjective Moral Relativism:

A subjective moral relativist would likely argue that there is no objectively right or wrong answer in this situation. They would emphasize that morality is subjective and personal.

• Argument: Sarah should ultimately decide what feels right for her, regardless of her family’s objections. Her personal happiness and fulfillment should be the primary considerations.

Cultural Relativism:

A cultural relativist would argue that the “right” approach is determined by the cultural norms and values of Sarah’s family.

• Argument: Since Sarah is part of Indian culture, she should respect her family’s traditions and consider their concerns. An interracial marriage might be considered unacceptable within her cultural context.

Is this approach correct?

While cultural relativism acknowledges the importance of cultural context, it can sometimes lead to the justification of harmful practices. In this case, blindly adhering to cultural norms that restrict individual freedom and happiness might not be the most ethical approach.

Sarah’s Decision:

Sarah, after much internal struggle, decided to proceed with the marriage to David. She explained her decision to her family, emphasizing her love for David and her belief in the importance of personal autonomy. While her parents were initially disappointed, they eventually came to accept her decision, albeit reluctantly.

Moral Justification:

Sarah justified her decision by emphasizing the importance of love, personal happiness, and the right to choose one’s own life partner. She also acknowledged her family’s concerns but explained that her happiness was equally important.

Is this approach morally correct?

There is no single “correct” answer. Sarah’s decision reflects a balance between respecting her family’s values and asserting her own autonomy.

Objective Moral Truth:

Whether there is an objective moral truth in this situation is a complex philosophical question.

• Arguments against objective truth: Some philosophers argue that morality is subjective and culturally relative, with no universal moral truths.
• Arguments for objective truth: Others argue that certain fundamental human rights, such as the right to love and the right to happiness, are universal and should be upheld, regardless of cultural norms.

Ultimately, the “correct” approach may depend on one’s own ethical framework and beliefs.

This scenario illustrates the complexities of navigating cultural differences and making ethical decisions in a multicultural world. It highlights the challenges of balancing respect for tradition with individual autonomy and the importance of open communication and understanding