This is based off of my first activity in my 22nd PSYC 2222 class.
Assume that you are a British Administrator in India. Under your supervision, a widow is condemned to be burned with her recently deceased husband. Out of respect for the man, who had been a friend of yours before his death, you go to the funeral and discover that this is going to happen. Do you stop the burning of the widow, or not? Take into account that the widow, as a strong follower of her faith, has no issues with being burned (indeed, she seems eager to see her husband on the other side), and recognizes it as a very large honour in her culture.
Do you allow it to continue, or not?
Personally, I would. It would go against almost every moral that I have, but if they were adamant on it, I would allow it to continue. Who am I to play God and say that I have better morals than them, or to prevent the woman's willful cremation?
I would, however, tell them about alternatives. If they are adamant, I let them be; it's their culture, not mine, and if I were religious I'm sure that I would be just as adamant on my values as they are in theirs.
Now, let us assume that they are not touchy on this subject, and engage you in intellectual debate. They present their argument: it's an ancient tradition in their culture, something that they've done for countless centuries.
My argument against them is that this is an argument fallacy, an appeal to tradition if you will. Just because it worked or was done in the past doesn't mean that it's the best way of going about things. If I had a record of tyranny, and it worked for me in the past, I would be inclined to continue being a tyrant. However, if somebody were to come along with a group of followers who were more faithful to her than mine were to me, then maybe fear isn't the best thing to do. If I decided to stick with tyranny because it worked for me, despite the option of a better choice, that would be an appeal to tradition.
Now, they could come at me with an argument that it is of spiritual value. Remember, neither party is seeking to disillusion or deter the other from their views, only debate for the sake of discussion.
My argument here is that we cannot prove that there is anything spiritual, and that faith is not always about logic. Sacrificing a life, which is priceless anywhere at anytime, for the suspicion that the spirit of the woman will carry on with the spirit of the man is very much like gambling. It is actually a form of Pascal's Wager, which states that you put faith in one thing, even though there could be other choices, and will make your final decision on faith when the time of judgement comes. Also, remember that we are speaking logically here; the suspicion of a soul or spirit is not strongly based. We cannot prove the existence of a spirit or soul, as they are based completely off of faith and a conception of the personality. Whether or not they are considered the personality now is of little importance; the original thought of a soul was that it was who a person was, that it was a divine existence which determined how you acted and what you would become.
Anyways, that's my argument against their tradition. I would let them keep it, whether or not it was right to me, but that's because it's a personal choice for them based on their culture. If it were something like an attempted genocide, then I wouldn't take it sitting down. There, they're putting their views above those of other people, and they aren't giving them the respect that others would give them, if given the chance.
Assume that you are a British Administrator in India. Under your supervision, a widow is condemned to be burned with her recently deceased husband. Out of respect for the man, who had been a friend of yours before his death, you go to the funeral and discover that this is going to happen. Do you stop the burning of the widow, or not? Take into account that the widow, as a strong follower of her faith, has no issues with being burned (indeed, she seems eager to see her husband on the other side), and recognizes it as a very large honour in her culture.
Do you allow it to continue, or not?
Personally, I would. It would go against almost every moral that I have, but if they were adamant on it, I would allow it to continue. Who am I to play God and say that I have better morals than them, or to prevent the woman's willful cremation?
I would, however, tell them about alternatives. If they are adamant, I let them be; it's their culture, not mine, and if I were religious I'm sure that I would be just as adamant on my values as they are in theirs.
Now, let us assume that they are not touchy on this subject, and engage you in intellectual debate. They present their argument: it's an ancient tradition in their culture, something that they've done for countless centuries.
My argument against them is that this is an argument fallacy, an appeal to tradition if you will. Just because it worked or was done in the past doesn't mean that it's the best way of going about things. If I had a record of tyranny, and it worked for me in the past, I would be inclined to continue being a tyrant. However, if somebody were to come along with a group of followers who were more faithful to her than mine were to me, then maybe fear isn't the best thing to do. If I decided to stick with tyranny because it worked for me, despite the option of a better choice, that would be an appeal to tradition.
Now, they could come at me with an argument that it is of spiritual value. Remember, neither party is seeking to disillusion or deter the other from their views, only debate for the sake of discussion.
My argument here is that we cannot prove that there is anything spiritual, and that faith is not always about logic. Sacrificing a life, which is priceless anywhere at anytime, for the suspicion that the spirit of the woman will carry on with the spirit of the man is very much like gambling. It is actually a form of Pascal's Wager, which states that you put faith in one thing, even though there could be other choices, and will make your final decision on faith when the time of judgement comes. Also, remember that we are speaking logically here; the suspicion of a soul or spirit is not strongly based. We cannot prove the existence of a spirit or soul, as they are based completely off of faith and a conception of the personality. Whether or not they are considered the personality now is of little importance; the original thought of a soul was that it was who a person was, that it was a divine existence which determined how you acted and what you would become.
Anyways, that's my argument against their tradition. I would let them keep it, whether or not it was right to me, but that's because it's a personal choice for them based on their culture. If it were something like an attempted genocide, then I wouldn't take it sitting down. There, they're putting their views above those of other people, and they aren't giving them the respect that others would give them, if given the chance.
Last edited:
