When Ethics Depends on Culture

Rules, Relationships, and the “Pedestrian” Dilemma

How we judge right and wrong often feels obvious—until we discover that others, just as well-intentioned, see the same situation very differently.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s Seven Dimensions of Culture study, based on interviews with over 15,000 managers across 43 countries, shows that responses to moral dilemmas are deeply shaped by cultural values.

One of the most influential of these dimensions is Universalism versus Particularism.

At its core, this dimension asks a simple question:

To explore this, Trompenaars uses a powerful ethical scenario:

You are a passenger in a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestrian. You know he was driving at least 35 miles per hour in an area where the speed limit is 20. There are no witnesses. His lawyer tells you that if you testify under oath that he was only driving 20 miles per hour, it may save him from serious legal consequences.

What right does your friend have to expect you to protect him?

This dilemma forces a choice between two competing principles:

• Loyalty to the law, which is meant to apply equally to everyone
• Loyalty to a personal relationship, where protecting a friend may feel morally necessary

What makes this scenario so revealing is that people across cultures answer it with equal confidence—but not with the same conclusion.

Strongly Universalist Cultures (90%+)

Countries such as Switzerland, Canada, the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Netherlands overwhelmingly believed the friend had little or no right to expect protection.

In these cultures:

• Laws are seen as impartial and essential to social order
• Friendship does not override legal or ethical responsibility
• Integrity is closely associated with consistency, fairness, and rule-keeping

From this perspective, lying for a friend would undermine trust in the system itself.

Moderately Universalist Cultures (70–89%)

Countries including Germany, the Czech Republic, and France occupy a middle ground.

Here:

• Rules still matter, but context is not ignored
• Ethical reasoning often involves weighing both legal obligation and personal loyalty
• Decisions are less absolute and more situational

Mixed or Transitional Cultures (50–69%)

Countries such as Singapore, Japan, Mexico, and India show greater ambivalence.

In these societies:

• Responses are divided between rule-based ethics and relationship-based responsibility
• Social harmony, context, and personal ties increasingly shape moral judgment
• Ethics are seen as relational rather than purely procedural

Strongly Particularist Cultures (Below 50%)

In China, Russia, Korea, and especially Venezuela, loyalty to relationships often takes precedence over abstract rules.

In these cultures:

• Helping a close friend in trouble is seen as a moral duty
• Refusing support may be judged more harshly than breaking a rule
• Integrity is defined through loyalty, trust, and human obligation

Practitioners working with people from collectivist cultures often find that relationships come first. Trust, engagement, and safety are built through relational commitment, not through rigid procedures.

In contrast, those from individualistic cultures often expect clear rules and firm boundaries. From this viewpoint, flexibility may appear unfair, unprofessional, or even unethical.

When these worldviews collide, misunderstandings easily arise.

In many Western organisations, professionals who adapt their approach for collectivist clients may be judged as having “loose boundaries.” At the same time, strictly enforcing rules without explanation can make practitioners appear cold, dismissive, or uncaring.

Simply saying “That’s not possible” or “We can’t do that”—without relational engagement—can quickly erode trust.

A Personal Reflection

During my early years working in mental health, I was often questioned about how I made decisions when engaging with individuals from collectivist cultures. I was told my boundaries were too flexible, and at times my professional judgment was scrutinised.

At the time, I struggled to explain myself. I felt unseen and uncertain, even though—at a deep level—I knew my decisions were the right ones. My reasoning was largely intuitive and relational, shaped by cultural understanding I hadn’t yet learned how to articulate.

It wasn’t until years of self-study and reflection that I began to understand what was happening. What had once felt like unconscious decision-making was actually culturally informed ethical reasoning. I had been responding to values around relationships, trust, and responsibility—without the language to explain them.

At the heart of this issue is the relationship between professionals and those accessing services. Ethical practice is not only about rules—it is about ensuring people feel understood, valued, and respected.

This applies not only to tangata whaiora, but also to professionals within organisations who come from collectivist cultures and may feel misunderstood or marginalised by rigid systems.

Rather than asking who is right or wrong, we need to ask:

• What values are shaping this expectation?
• What does integrity look like in this cultural context?

Reference
Trompenaars, F. (2018). Did the pedestrian die? Ethics across cultures. Journal of Intercultural Management and Ethics, 1, 5–10. https://doi.org/10.35478/jime.2018.1.02