Cultural Relativism In Inuit Culture
I believe the act of deliberately sacrificing another human being is morally wrong, but there are some cases where it is justifiable. I also believe that cultural relativism plays a role in this, and that some societies view sacrificing others as morally right and that culture needs to be taken into consideration.
An example of this is the killing of female babies in the Inuit culture. Female babies were killed due to a high death rate among men, who were hunters, which led to a surplus of females. This shortage of men, meant a shortage of food, in order to keep the majority of the culture alive, men were of priority because they were the providers of food. It is morally right in their society to kill due to these circumstances, but our
society shuns upon such activity and it is morally wrong for us. I personally see this as a morally wrong act because these female babies weren’t asked to be part of this world or “disposed” of for that matter, but it is justifiable because more of them would die due to lack of food and if they allowed every female to live, it would drain their very limited resources.
Euthanasia is the intentional killing of a patient for his/her alleged benefit by a doctor. Or physician assisted suicide, when a doctor helps another person end their life. The reason why the doctor deliberately kills a patient is because the patient wants to end his/her life of suffering. I personally don’t see euthanasia or physician assisted suicide as a morally wrong act if the patient knowingly and coherently requests it, I believe it is justifiable because of all the suffering, not only for the patient, but the family and friends (majority) as well.
Death penalty is another example, many Americans believe that execution of convicted murderers acts as a restraint, and prevents the future deaths of many innocent people. They feel that the overall gain to society outweighs the killing of some individual lives. I personally don’t agree with the death penalty, murderers have no right to take the life of another individual, and in return we have no right to take the life of that individual. If we do (like we do) I believe it shows our inconsistency with the fundamental values of our democratic system.
Another example is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII. In bombing Japan, we were able to save many Americans, because the Japanese were working towards developing a similar weapon that could have been used on the U.S. which would have killed many Americans.
I believe these examples provide an explanation to situations that I personally view as morally wrong, but can be justified in some way. The war in Iraq is an obvious example of sacrificing human lives to benefit the majority. Although there was thousands of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded, millions were saved. Can this be justified? I would say yes, I believe deadly force may be used in self defense, especially after an attack (like 9/11). With that said, I believe the killing and torturing of Iraqi civilians is wrong. Unnecessary killing of thousands of innocent people to punish or prevent crimes (like Hiroshima), which they bear no responsibility for, is just plain wrong.
An example of this is the killing of female babies in the Inuit culture. Female babies were killed due to a high death rate among men, who were hunters, which led to a surplus of females. This shortage of men, meant a shortage of food, in order to keep the majority of the culture alive, men were of priority because they were the providers of food. It is morally right in their society to kill due to these circumstances, but our
society shuns upon such activity and it is morally wrong for us. I personally see this as a morally wrong act because these female babies weren’t asked to be part of this world or “disposed” of for that matter, but it is justifiable because more of them would die due to lack of food and if they allowed every female to live, it would drain their very limited resources.
Euthanasia is the intentional killing of a patient for his/her alleged benefit by a doctor. Or physician assisted suicide, when a doctor helps another person end their life. The reason why the doctor deliberately kills a patient is because the patient wants to end his/her life of suffering. I personally don’t see euthanasia or physician assisted suicide as a morally wrong act if the patient knowingly and coherently requests it, I believe it is justifiable because of all the suffering, not only for the patient, but the family and friends (majority) as well.
Death penalty is another example, many Americans believe that execution of convicted murderers acts as a restraint, and prevents the future deaths of many innocent people. They feel that the overall gain to society outweighs the killing of some individual lives. I personally don’t agree with the death penalty, murderers have no right to take the life of another individual, and in return we have no right to take the life of that individual. If we do (like we do) I believe it shows our inconsistency with the fundamental values of our democratic system.
Another example is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan in WWII. In bombing Japan, we were able to save many Americans, because the Japanese were working towards developing a similar weapon that could have been used on the U.S. which would have killed many Americans.
I believe these examples provide an explanation to situations that I personally view as morally wrong, but can be justified in some way. The war in Iraq is an obvious example of sacrificing human lives to benefit the majority. Although there was thousands of U.S. soldiers killed and wounded, millions were saved. Can this be justified? I would say yes, I believe deadly force may be used in self defense, especially after an attack (like 9/11). With that said, I believe the killing and torturing of Iraqi civilians is wrong. Unnecessary killing of thousands of innocent people to punish or prevent crimes (like Hiroshima), which they bear no responsibility for, is just plain wrong.