You and a colleague are on month-long business trip in a remote area of a foreign country, during which time there occurs an outbreak of a deadly disease. Officials from a neighboring government’s disease control agency, trying to cover as much ground as possible, drop off a vial of vaccine with you and your colleague and move on.With you is a family who are part of a particular culture within this country. And in this particular culture it is thought to be morally wrong to be injected with medications that do not come from their own healing traditions, which are bound up tightly with their religion. You are absolutely certain that this vaccine will save them from death. You also know that you can give it to them against their will.
Your colleague is a cultural moral relativist, and she argues that you should not vaccinate any of these people, including the children (one of which is an infant), because though it seems wrong to not vaccinate that is only because of your cultural point of view. She says that you and she cannot morally judge their decision to refuse vaccination, and certainly don’t have grounds to interfere with it.First, in your own words, but drawing upon our readings, explain what cultural moral relativism is and explain at least one argument supporting it. Next, what should you do? Should you accept your colleague’s decision, and the reasons she gives, and not inject any of them? If so, why? That is, here you’ll want to defend relativism. Should you inject the entire family? If so, why?Should you just inject the children and not the adults? If so, why?If you disagree with your colleague’s relativist theory of morality, explain why (this can be done in the course of dealing with either the second or third bullet point above, whichever best reflects your position).Whatever your answer, justify it by your own arguments and also ideas.


Order your custom paper