I’d heard this story before, but was reminded of it by a link to Mark Steyn on TKS:
In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
That seems about right. He doesn’t “respect their right to practice their culture,” nor does he gratuitously belittle them. He just tells them what they’re doing is wrong and explains the consequences of their choice to continue following a barbaric custom that was apparently not all that widespread or popular anyway.
I’m curious what Indian readers think of this, if any happen to read this and would care to comment.
On a totally unrelated note, this has some interesting predictions about the nature of future science (via GeekPress).
{ 11 comments }
To play Devil’s advocate: What gives the British the right do judge another culture’s customs? That the British do not practice this same custom themselves may be deemed just as evil by another society. Are they morally right just because they say they are?
When in doubt, pick the option where less people die.
Kevin
Advocating for the Devil are we? What, are the Democrats tired today? ;)
You’ve given me the opportunity to reeducate myself on this topic. The following arguments come from “Philosophical Problems of Moral Relativism” by Francis Beckwith (PDF link).
First, the fact that people disagree with something does not mean there is no objective truth (Beckwith). For example, arguing that the earth is flat does not stop it from being round.
Second, Indians and Americans may disagree on eating cows, but both cultures agree that eating children is unacceptable. Just because cultures may not share all the same values does not mean they don’t hold any in common.
Third, arguing current differences ignores settled common values such as those regarding slavery and woman’s sufferage. This skews our perception into thinking that moral values are insoluble when in fact many have been solved.
Fourth, tolerance of cultural differences implies the existence of a moral absolute: tolerance. As Bioethicist Tom Beauchamp points out:
In other words, accepting moral relativism puts one on extremely shaky philosophical ground – exactly as Mark Steyn points out with the gallows quote.
Kevin D,
Well, the counter-argument is: what gives the Indians the right to put the woman to death?
This is the central point I was trying to make with the other post: individuals can be put in inferior positions by a culture. Pointing out mistakes by a culture does not degrade the culture or make it inferior. The two are not morally equivalent, so when there is conflict the rights of the individual are paramount.
Scott also makes a good point regarding moral relativism. Moral relativism is the basis of multiculturalism, and it fails the minute cultures intersect and violate individual rights: one might believe oneself enlightened for claiming Aztecs have the right to practice cannibalism as their culture, but I doubt one can be so sanguine from inside the boiling pot.
gosh, this example would work just fine if WE WERE ACTUALLY COLONIALIST OPPRESSORS IN CHARGE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Dave, your initial conditions completely contaminate your thought experiment, sorry.
Sure, but it’s still applicable to the broader question of culture vs. rights and multiculturalism.
alright, talldave.
Here is Sailor’s Law.
Citizenry shall trump race, religion, ethnicity, and culture in absolutely all incidences of conflict.
The suttee performers were citizens of the Raj.
they obey the Raj rules.
Mmmmmmm…. Whale!
I’m recalling the feasts that the pro-whaling crowd would sponsor in Japan – since whaling is a cultural tradition there.
Of course I often pointed out to my pro-whaling friends that ritual disembowling was an even bigger tradition, one that hasn’t been practiced there much recently (although one I wish they’d bring back for politicians).
really good link to Kelly, dave.
Dean should put it in the Singularity Watch.
Singularity Watch? I may have to make that a category.
In fact, I’m going to.
The general may have made the comment first, but see, for example,
—
Bentinck, Lord William Cavendish
While Governor-General, Bentinck proposed outlawing suttee/sati and was advised by prominent locals not to do so for fear of stirring up trouble in those areas (aside: suttee was not really widespread and mostly regarded as “backwards”) where it was practiced. These concerns led to the East India Company calling Bentinck to London, where the Directors told him to drop the idea.
On returning to India, he promptly disobeyed and forced through the law.
Comments on this entry are closed.