A difficult question dealing with ethics

[Helmholtz Watson]

This scenario came up in a college class and I wanted to present this to Escapists here so that I could get a rough estimate of the dominate option that would be chosen. So here it goes....

You are a British soldier in charge of an Indian town back in the 18th century. You have a central body of government and an army at your command. In the town some native Indians are about to take part in a funeral for an elderly man. One of the many different and ancient traditions in India (not everybody in India did this) was to burn the man's wive to death at the funeral. The old man's wive was sad for her husband and wanted to join him, she was not being held against her will and she wanted to die along with her husband. This is the scenario, but would you save the elderly woman from being burned alive, or use all of your resources to stop her? Just as a warning if you stop her from being burned alive, you are running the chance of upsetting the natives and starting a war which could cost many lives including your's and your mens'. What would you do?

lol this reminds me of a quote (about this exact issue), so in the words of Sir Charles Napier, the British Commander-in-chief in India, I would to the natives(assuming it was ruled by my country to be against the law)..

"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."

In all seriousness, if it wasn't against the law of my country, then I would not tell them how to live their lives because the women has given consent.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm British soldier in charge of all this? Call me Blackadder, then.

"Baldrick, if it's some country's tradition to burn the wife in the funeral of the man and the wife WANTS to go, then I don't see the problem."

 

[RKOking226]

No moral dilemma? You having the resources and ability to stop this from happening, from killing a human being? Yes she is willing to die, but how much is a human's life or soul worth? If I was the officer in charge, I would have used my soldiers to stop the funeral. I would not want any violence, but I would willingly to put my life and my soldier's lives at risk for the idea of a human's soul being worth more than tradition and political correctness.

So your willing to let a whole army die (including the natives) just to save one life? You would be killing more than you would be saving in the long run. Sometimes your need to sacrifice one soul to save hundred souls.

 

[marfin_]

Was there life not given to them, surely they did not choose to life, why do they get to choose to die?

Given by who? It sounds like you're dragging some kind of religious morals into this.

I am very sorry about being unclear about this topic. I am not trying to turn this into a religious statement. I am talking about if any of you believe in a universal moral code? This question is directed to any or all religions or even to those that have no religion.

 

[seraphy]

Thing is it seems rather doubtful that she's just going to be committing suicide because of some mental issue. She simply seems to believe in her tradition rather strongly.

It might usually be unwilling, but if the OP wanted that taken into account he shouldn't have put the bit about her wanting to die along with her husband. If it was just a scenario where all we had as far as information goes was the fact it's usually not quite willing I imagine there'd be quite a few different responses.

But how can you know if her suicide is just peer pressure thanks to an ancient tradition and how much of it is her own decision?

I would say that it would be much more harmful to allow this tradition to live on like this than allow her to go on with even if it was her own decision. She would perhaps do suicide later if she truly wanted to it is true, but at least you would know that you didn't allow outdated tradition to live like this. Really no reason to give the impression to people that this tradition is still strong.

 

[marfin_]

I would say that it would be much more harmful to allow this tradition to live on like this than allow her to go on with even if it was her own decision. She would perhaps do suicide later if she truly wanted to it is true, but at least you would know that you didn't allow outdated tradition to live like this. Really no reason to give the impression to people that this tradition is still strong.

That is my stance on this as well. I find lots of people who think they are being open minded and correct in thinking that "who am I to tell these people how to live there lives?" whenever it is really in my opinion really ignorant.

 

[marfin_]

I'd say her personal decision is more important than some misguided attempt to stomp on tradition. If there's a reason to disallow it in a particular case, go ahead. But if there's no reason besides you disliking the tradition, then no. Let people take what impressions they want from it, that she is going to give people some kind of impression doesn't mean she doesn't deserve her freedom to do it.

Why does she have that decision though, I mean to take her own life?

 

[seraphy]

The first post simply stats she wanted to die with her husband. It doesn't say that maybe it's due to peer pressure or something. She's clearly influenced by her culture, but then everyone is.

I'd say her personal decision is more important than some misguided attempt to stomp on tradition. If there's a reason to disallow it in a particular case, go ahead. But if there's no reason besides you disliking the tradition, then no. Let people take what impressions they want from it, that she is going to give people some kind of impression doesn't mean she doesn't deserve her freedom to do it.

In this case there is truly strong reason to stomp tradition. Indian goverment is trying to do this whole the time, this really still happens in India. Her suicide even if self inflicted, can and potentially will kill other widows who aren't going to want to do suicide unlike her. Is that not a reason enough for you?

 

[zakkro]

I'd say let her do it, but teach others that it's pointless.

 

[seraphy]

No, it really isn't. Because her suicide alone is not the cause. Her suicide is not a direct call to kill other widows. People might take it that way, but that is their own fault and not something that should prevent her from ending her own life if she chooses to do so if she's sane.

Yes, but not in a way, that will end up other people being killed against their will. Suicide is one thing reinforcing tradition like this quite different. It is too bad that you can't see the difference here.

It is quite huge.

 

[marfin_]

Why does she have that decision though, I mean to take her own life?

Because there's no reason she shouldn't have it. What says she shouldn't be allowed to, and why?

Where does it say that? Well no where... but where are we basing any of our morals?

 

[seraphy]

It's sad that you think not sharing your moral views is not seeing the difference. The difference is not being so narrowminded as to think that just because I don't pander to the consequences means I don't see it. Are you really that full of yourself?

Anyway, when you're done pretending to be superior maybe you'll have a real reply?

Nice ad hominem.

I have told you my view on this already, you're quite free to disagree. Have a nice day.