|
Post by ogre on Apr 13, 2008 4:41:51 GMT
Just wondering (as I do at this time of the morning on shift).
Elsewhere there was a small exchange over Missionaries being eaten by those they'd gone to convert.
I'd be interested in getting people's thoughts on the following:-
Who is morally superior?
The missionary trying to spread the word of God and change the culture
The cannibals who have eaten people for thousands of years
Both as bad as each other.
If you want to keep it quick, just post "missionary" if he is superior, "cannibal" if his ethnic ways should be preserved or "Both" for a pox on both their houses
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 13, 2008 9:27:29 GMT
Ok great question and I love this sort of thing. Well on the face of it you could have said either or both based on what our conditioning, beliefs and values are. To make a decision it all depends on your own beliefs and values. A christian might say that the missionaries were morally superior as they were bringing Christianity to these people. Others might say the missionaries were more superior because canibalism is horrific and it is a taboo in society to eat other human beings. Some may say the canibals are more superior because it is their land and their culture. After thinking about it I pretty quickly came to the decision that the canibals were more superior. If I was to judge them by today's western standards I might say their behaviour was disgusting but thinking about it objectively it isn't. Their culture is not a western one and they have different morals, beliefs and values. If I use my beliefs, values, conditioning, morals and judge them by today's standards then I am not being entirely fair. I have to try and get into their heads and understand why they did what they did and if in their minds they were doing anything wrong or not. So for me the canibals are morally superior. It is their land where they have their way of life. We see canibalism as wrong and taboo because that is what we have been conditioned to believe but that may not be the same for the culture of this canibal tribe. The missionaries are outsiders who have walked in on and interrupted another culture and tried to impose their own belief and value system. If it had been reversed I would have sided with the missionaries but in this case it is the cannibals life which has been encroached on. The missionaries took the risk and when you play with fire you risk getting burnt. The canibals were doing nothing but getting on with their daily lives. Ever heard of the term an Englishman's home is his castle. Well I think that theory applies here. The missionaries were uninvited guests in another culture and they should be prepared to play by the cannibals rules. The cannibals were just doing what was normal to them. There was probably no ill intent meant and no rules broken. Therefore to me the canibals are morally superior. Love these moral debates. Thanks. I'm hungry now
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 13, 2008 12:24:09 GMT
As kensington rightly points out, it all depends on whose moral code one is to judge by. Whose moral code should we employ here, and why?
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Apr 13, 2008 19:28:28 GMT
I wasn't asking anyone to use any fixed moral code (though I leave it free if they want to) but to make a value judgement.
As an amatuer historian I know how cultures have changed over the years and things thought to be wrong by one generation is condoned by following generations (for example women being allowed to learn how to read & write, women having the vote etc.)
If there are no moral absolutes (and Kensington I am not disagreeing with you here) so eating sentinent humans is OK as long as it is part of your culture, even if the person you are eating is not part of that culture, then why bother to have standards at all?
I think I've seen elsewhere threads about 500 women and children being removed from some cult (culture) because they (apparently) are having child sex.
But if the stated position is "as long as they don't interfere with me they can believe what they like" and kensington's "It is their land where they have their way of life. We see canibalism as wrong and taboo because that is what we have been conditioned to believe " then swap cannibalism for [paedophillia, necromancy, human sacrifice, female castration] then no one can tell them "F*ck that for a game of soldiers you perverts, stop it now" ??
I'm afraid I disagree. It is the "duty" of someone who knows that is wrong to attempt to stop it. BTW Kensington, again I deplore the obliteration of so much culture (like the RC Church did to Western Europe during the Dark Ages, the Spaniards did to the Aztecs and the Taliban did with those Bhuddist statues), but in this case, even though the cannibals have eaten people for generations, eating sentinent humans is wrong. In my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 13, 2008 22:17:01 GMT
'Wrong' is what a society deems so at a given time.
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Apr 13, 2008 23:19:15 GMT
So if Science came up with the fact that you can obtain perfect health by eating humans, and Society decided that (in order to extend your life and save money on the NHS) condemmed criminals would be eaten, you would not think that wrong?
Actually I do conceed the point that you might not realise it is wrong, because you will be a product of your Society, and therefore not realise that there is an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 13, 2008 23:29:00 GMT
My opinion is that you don't 'realise' something is wrong so much as 'accept' it is, at a particular point in time, in a particular place and society. It is now 'wrong' (and a good thing too) to have slaves in this country. It wasn't before. It is now 'wrong' (and a good thing too) to sleep with a girl under the age of 16. It didn't use to be. It used to be 'wrong' to be a homosexual. Some still think it is, but it is no longer recognised as 'wrong' by the legal system. Notions of right and wrong change.
I would find your example 'wrong' because I am a product of my time and place. If I were from another time and a different place, who knows how I would feel about it.
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Apr 14, 2008 0:12:38 GMT
Ok so I kicked off with the Big things, cannibalism, Paedophillia, Human Sacrifice, and the consensus so far seems to be they're all OK as long as they form part of the belief system of the Society you inhabit at that time.
So how about the "little" things, like paying bribes to get better service. Is paying the waiter to get a better table better or worse than BAE (allegedly) winning an export order for Britain?
Is taking biros home from the office the same as taking home a computer monitor?
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 1:07:53 GMT
In order to answer the question honestly and adequately I think just simply judging it by our own standards is unfair and does not do the question justice. You say bribery, paedophilia and human sacrifice is wrong. Yep wrong in England and wrong in the western world and wrong in our eyes but who are we to tell a totally different culture that our morals are right? How do we even know that paedophilia or bribery go on in this society. How do we know they even have the same connotations? How do we know that the missionaries were not paedophiles or into bribery? Of course that never happens in the church so how could I suggest such a thing.
To simply judge another totally different culture and impose our beliefs on them is not justice but a form of injustice and imperialism and in my book we become as morally inferior as the missionaries themselves. So I am now even more steadfast in my defence of the cannibals.
In a jury I am weighing up the pros and cons and evidence from both sides. I am not allowing my own prejudices and ideas to simply decide whether someone is guilty. I have to look at wider issues to such as culture, background, social history, attitudes, intent and motive etc. So for me the cannibals are most certainly morally superior. Who are we to tell them their way of life is wrong? William
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 1:09:52 GMT
Ps: you mention cults etc but these are groups within other groups where the ideas you mention are taboo but not isolated cultures where no other influence has been there. Two very different things to me.
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Apr 14, 2008 1:39:29 GMT
Hi William, I don't think that condemning cannibalism (etc) as wrong is judging by "Western" standards. Surely the eating of a fellow human is wrong?
I was not specifying any particular culture, but what we would term paedophillia and human sacrifice certainly has gone on in human culture throughout history (in England up to about the 19thC a woman could be married at 14, and there were no birth certificates. Male Children in England aged 6 (again up to the mid 19thC) would be expected to work for a living, and be disciplined in exactly the same way as adults because there was no concept of "childhood". Human sacrifices have turned up in peat bogs over much of Europe, the Celts were possibley quite enthusiatic about it, but I don't trust the Roman records).
At no time did I state the Missionaries as individuals were perfect, indeed I don't think any human is.
So I accept your point that all morals are relative, have a right to exist and should not be imposed from an external source. TBH the historical record backs up your & hellyp's POV entirely. I don't necessarily agree.
As to your distinction between "cult" and "culture", how big does a cult have to be to count as a culture? When the Protestant movement swept Europe in the 16thC it started out as cults, small groups who each believed in being different to the Roman Catholic church that they came from.
It did not win it's existence by sitting around saying "oh everyone has a right to believe what they like" but had to fight hard against the prevaling culture (and itself, look at the Hussites).
What happens in the case of the Sect I mentioned earlier that are currently under investigation. (I think they were Mormon's?) if they go out Evanglising and over a generation the USA, fed up with the disunity and moral ambiguity currently being shown by their leadership unites under THEIR morale code?
Just sit back and go "it's up to them"?
Someone help your daughters!
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 4:51:37 GMT
Hello there Ogre, I accept that to an extent you are playing devil's advocate and I am glad you are as it helps move the argument forward as well as make us question our original views. I am totally in agreement with you regarding culture. In fact I made a recent Youtube video pointing out how I detested the catch all argument that some people use the phrase "it's culture" as an excuse. Slavery and the burning of suspected witches was part of culture but it doesn't necessarily make it right. I abhor the idea of male child circumcision except for medical reasons and despise the defense that it is a religious or cultural right. To me culture doesn't justify what I consider barbaric behaviour. At the same time I accept my morals may not be those of someone elses. However for me for something to be morally wrong the purpetrators have to either be aware that to other cultures or ideologies or even their own what they were doing is seen as wrong. There has to be some intent. Often people who break the law but are insane are not sent to prison or seen fit to stand trial because they were unaware that what they were doing was wrong. I also accept the possibility that maybe I am the one that is morally wrong and my values are wrong but I have yet to be convinced of that in the main though on some issues I have been known to shift my morals. It's about growing and developing and often adapting. Many of the cult leaders in America were aware that in mainstream society in the USA their behaviour is deemed wrong and morally wrong. By my standards and based on what they probably knew yes they were morally wrong. However to me there is a distinction that I hinted at above between being just wrong and being morally wrong. For me eating human meat is wrong but for this tribe was it morally wrong? Were they aware that what they were doing was even wrong let alone morally wrong by some people's standards? Did they have other cultures with morals that they could compare theirs to and use as a bench mark as cults in America or many of the burners of witches could. Did they know any other alternatives? Did they know any better? How can a child be naughty and then scolded if he has no idea what is accepted behaviour? How can we judge him if we don't teach him what is wrong in the first place. Do I yell at a baby beacause he soils the carpet? No as he knows no better? That is the equivalent with the tribe in my view. How can they be morally wrong when they have no idea they may at least in some people's eyes be doing wrong. If they had no other bench marks with which to compare their values or way of life and meant no ill will by eating a human then for me how can they be morally wrong? I can't judge them in the same way I would a westerner. I don't feel I can judge them by own standards when their way of life is so different. Also who is to say my values are superior? Who is to say eating human meat is far worse than say eating beef or chicken? I know some extreme vegans who would argue that case. Do we oppose it on medical grounds or because we have been conditioned to believe it is wrong? Children are taught right and wrong from a young age though with some of the kids I see I do wonder. Any way in theory they are taught right and wrong from a young age according to our values. Now if the cannibals know no different how can they be morally wrong? For me for something to be morally wrong you should have some inkling or some bench mark to know or be aware that to some your actions are wrong. Now the tribe may or may not have been wrong but they were not morally wrong. What they were doing may have been an every day part of their culture. Who knows perhaps some things we do would horrify them. I used to study in France and the French were horrified at the idea of eating mint sauce with lamb. Some cultures in India find the idea of drinking milk disgusting not simply because the cow is sacred but they see it as the equivalent of eating cow's urine. So part of my moral code is about understanding the morals and backgrounds of others before I judge them. I feel the cannibal situation is very different from say the cult in the news in America or even slavery or witch hunting. The cannibals were a fully isolated culture and knew no different. They are not in the same league as a cannibal in say England or a paedophile in the USA. What may seem wrong to us in another culture may not at the same time be morally wrong for the reaons mentioned above. For me the cannibals were doing something quite natural to them no different from me eating beef etc. However the missionaries chose to leave one culture and walk in on another culture and preach their own values. They were guests and should have behaved like guests. They took a risk going there and low and behold they played with fire. The cannibals were just going about their daily life etc. How would the missionaries feel if the cannibals came to their country and asked them to eat humans etc. While eating human meat may be abhorrent to you and me the idea of not eating humnan meat might be abhorrent to the cannibals. This to me is totally different from the examples you have mentioned which have bench marks to compare themselves to and are cultures within other cultures. It has nothing at all to do with sitting around and saying live and let live. We need to distinguish what is plain wrong with what is morally wrong or what is even wrong at all and why it is wrong. All the examples you mentioned were aware that there were alternative views. The Protestants sprung from the Catholic church etc and also were aware of different protestant sects with different beliefs. This may not be the case with cannibals who had no bench mark or indicator of what to others might be morally wrong. How do we usually know what is right and wrong? Well our parents and teachers teach us. Often as we get older we develop our own morals but our basic morals tend to remain the ones we were taught when young. The cannibals were probably no different and grew up on the morals they were taught. So while I might sympathise though not fully agree with a verdict the cannibals were wrong I would certainly oppose any verdict that would find them morally wrong. Never mind locking up your daughters. If the missionaries had locked themselves up at home instead of preaching at others and going were they were not wanted they would not have been in this mess in the first place. They played with fire and got burnt. As you say it is very much relative. So with even more conviction I say the cannibals are most certainly morally superior.
|
|
|
Post by ogre on Apr 14, 2008 5:36:42 GMT
Hmmm actually that is about the most convincing arguement I've ever come across on the "cannibalism is culturally justified" front.
I don't want to just declare that "it is wrong" as that just makes me a dogmatic as any fundamentalist, so may I just explain that I believe eating humans is wrong as (a) if there isn't an afterlife, a unique human's life has been shortened, and that is wrong ( although euthanasia to my POV may not be, but that's a seperate issue) (b) if there is an afterlife, how can you spend eternity with the people who were sucking on your gizzards? You're in for an eternity of resentment and embarrassment. (c) I think that the eating of humans passed back in to the food chain many diseases, such as CJD, TB and others, so the practice should be discouraged on health grounds.
As to the education and discipline of children, well I think the last few generations have been let down by the adults.
I hear so many reports of "we should listen to the children" " we should learn what the children have to teach us" - WHAT??? They're bl**dy Children. OK if they're abused or uneducated we should listen, but they don't know squat about real life, we should be telling them.
I saw advertised a new programme "the kids are allright" where "super" kids were going to beat the adults. I have not had chance to see it (not sure I want to) but I have the feeling this is the culmination of adults surrendering their responsibilty of being an adult to kids. I won't comment more until I have had chance to see it.
Time has beaten me, I'm off home but I will be back tonight and look forward to more of a debate (btw where is the youtube vid?)
(sorry couldn't resist, the English hung their witches, it was the Scots and Europeans who burnt them)
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 6:03:02 GMT
Hi Ogre, it's a tough one but a goodie. These hypothetical debates really get the mind going and it's fascianting debating things that usually I would never have the chance to debate such as canibalism. It allows me to explore those areas of my mind and thoughts that have remained untouched.
Your reasons for not eating meat are exactly the reasons why I would not. For me there is almost something incestuous about eating another human and of course there are disease risks such a CJD etc.
You are so right about children being let down by adults. I feel that discipline has fallen apart. I once heard a talk back radio show where a caller asked why kids get away with so much and the presenter replied that it was because we let them. I think to a large extent that is true. Parents and teachers are becoming more and more nervous of disciplining children. For me there is a large distinction between abuse and discipline and sadly those who are doing the latter and scared of being accused of performing the other. It's worrying.
I don't think a child in terms of social hierarchy should be the equal of a parent or teacher and neither should he or she be. Sadly that discipline and social hierarchy has crumbled for many. As a result kids are not learning right for wrong adequately as less and less people are telling them what is right and wrong. Many kids are getting away with more and more. Of course many kids mature and grow up to be responsible adults but many do not and carry that awful behaviour to their own kids.
Above all I think there is a lack of respect. That is respect for parents, teachers, the rule of law, their peers, other people and above all themselves. When you respect nothing or very little what moral values are there. Respect can play a big part in your morals and without it a large chunk of those morals collapse. That lack of respect and values seems to be more and more contagious.
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 6:07:56 GMT
Ps: the video I made was one of my notorious late night rants. I don't drink so I can't blame grog but I stand by the sentiment of what I say in the video that simply using culture as defense is no excuse in itself. The link is au.youtube.com/watch?v=zINgA_ecgAU
|
|
|
Post by Koolg on Apr 14, 2008 9:16:10 GMT
Ps: the video I made was one of my notorious late night rants. I don't drink so I can't blame grog but I stand by the sentiment of what I say in the video that simply using culture as defense is no excuse in itself. The link is au.youtube.com/watch?v=zINgA_ecgAUWow it really gets to you, doesn't it
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 9:23:27 GMT
Lol yep at that time of night anything gets to me lol
|
|
|
Post by shmumph on Apr 14, 2008 9:30:38 GMT
I've just started looking into missionaries since beginning to do my family tree and finding out my Great Uncle was indeed a missionary. I never met him as he went over to Africa aged 30 after he married my Great Aunt and never came back. She never did find out what happened to him.
|
|
|
Post by kensington on Apr 14, 2008 9:33:28 GMT
I'm sorry to hear that. Where in Africa was he and did your great aunt have an theories as to what may have happened?
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Apr 14, 2008 9:34:44 GMT
Who is morally superior? The missionary trying to spread the word of God and change the culture I'm not sure about morals, but anyone going to the lengths that Missionaries went to just to tell people they're going to Hell unless they follow their God, deserves to be eaten. I'd even write a recipe book. For free.
|
|