Question

Mai has moved to the United States from Myanmar. She does not know how to drive and is frightened by the freeways and traffic congestion. Her husband insists that she learn to drive because they live in a suburb with no public transportation.

"No," says Mai firmly. "I am 38 years old and I have always been able to reach my destination without driving a car."

According to conventionalism, who has the stronger ethical stance— Mai or her husband?

a. Her husband, because he cannot transport Mai everywhere she needs to go.
b. Mai, because she does not want to learn to drive.
c. Her husband, because driving is a societal norm in the United States.
d. Mai, because driving is not valued in her society like it is in the United States.

Answer 1

In the context of conventionalism, Mai's husband has the stronger ethical stance by advocating for driving, a societal norm in the United States, while Mai's background might influence a different ethical view due to her society's different transportation values.

Step-by-step explanation:

The ethical dilemma presented here involves cultural differences in views on driving and dependence on vehicles for transportation. According to conventionalism, which suggests that ethical truths are dependent on society's conventions and norms, the stronger ethical stance would arguably be in favor of Mai's husband, because driving is a societal norm in the United States (c. Her husband, because driving is a societal norm in the United States).

This view is contingent on the context of the culture Mai is now living in, which highly values the ability to drive due to the suburban lifestyle and the lack of public transportation. Conversely, in Mai's native society, there may not be as much emphasis on driving as a necessary skill, pointing to the possibility of a different ethical stance based on her cultural background (d. Mai, because driving is not valued in her society like it is in the United States).