This is something that I've been wanting to post here for a while.
Below is the text of one of the assignments for my Logic and Critical Thinking class, modified only to increase legibility on these forums. It was a very interesting moral conundrum. In fact, I discovered in the course of the assignment that what I believed I *would* do in the described situation was not the same as what I logically concluded I *should* do in such a situation. Feel free to discuss either paradigm if they are different, but please say which paradigm your choice reflects if they differ.
A quick note: What I post is the assignment exactly as it was given to me (aside from the previously mentioned legibility edits). The scenario includes character dialogue on both sides of the issue, and this dialogue does not stay civil for long. The second half of the dialogue after the elder's long line is an intermittently *bad* example (which I believe was an intent of the instructor); please follow the debate club rules on civility and *not* this example.
*************
The Bihar Baby Case:
A Study of Conflicting Cultural Values
Introduction: In general, it is important to respect the cultural values of others different from your own culture. Sometimes, however, the values embraced in another culture can conflict with your own fundamental or most cherished values. In this case, travelers in another country are confronted with a decision in which they must choose between their own values and those of another culture. In reaching a decision in this case, you should think critically about such ideas as morality, human rights, cultural values, and religious rights.
Narrative: You are traveling as tourists in the company of four other U.S. students in a rural part of southern India. As you come within a mile of a small village called Bihar, you notice something beside the road. As your car comes closer, you notice an infant wrapped in a blanket. You urge the driver to stop. Upon closer inspection, you discover the infant is still alive and well.
One of your friends, Jonathan, says, “We’d better leave it. They have different customs over here. It’s none of our business. Let’s not get involved.”
Jim replies, “Are you crazy! This is just a little baby. We’ve got to do something! Let’s take it to the next village, at least.” Jim gets out, picks up the child, and climbs back in the car.
Gwen and Susan agree with Jim. Jonathan reluctantly consents, and so do you. So, the five of you proceed toward Bihar with the baby.
When you get to the center of the village, you see an elderly man sitting in front of the largest house.
Gwen says, “He looks like the village elder or a priest or something. I’m going to take the baby over to him and see if we can find someone to leave her with.” Gwen gets out of the car with the baby in her arms. She walks over to the elderly gentleman and begins to speak. Suddenly four or five villagers rush toward her, gesturing angrily. She cannot understand them, but feels a bit intimidated. The elderly gentleman stands up and yells something, and the villagers back off. He walks over to Gwen and begins to speak in broken English.
“You have done our village a grave injustice. You must return that child to where you found it at once.”
Gwen replies, “But why? She is just a little baby! She will die out there!”
The elderly gentleman answers, “Our astrologer told us that the great god Shiva is displeased with our village and requires a sacrifice of an outcaste. If we do not offer this sacrifice, the great god will destroy our harvest this season. The lives of our villagers depend on that harvest each year. We must comply or we will starve. This baby is a member of the outcaste, and she is our sacrifice. For many hundreds of years we have done what the great god says. You must return it our we will starve.”
Gwen returns to the car with the baby. She says, “They want us to take the baby back. I can’t do it.”
Jonathan says, “Look, we are in their country. They have been doing this sort of thing for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. Just because we don’t like it is no reason we should impose our values on them. After all, we are just visiting in their country.”
Jim chimes in: “I guess Jonathan is right, as much as it bothers me. We have no right to impose ourselves on them. We had better put her back where we found her.”
Susan complains, “Wait a minute! I thought we believed in human rights. Doesn’t this child have a right to life like everyone else? Whatever happened to, ‘All men are created equal and have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?”
Jonathan replies, “And who are you to judge that these people are wrong? Who says our values are right and theirs are wrong. You’re just another typical imperialistic Westerner who wants to colonize the third world. Don’t be so arrogant?”
Susan replies, “And you are just a wishy-washy wimp who hasn’t the courage of your moral convictions. What’s the matter with you? Can’t you empathize with suffering when you see it? Are you actually capable of being an accomplice in this culture’s infanticide? I don’t care if they’ve been sacrificing innocent children for a million years. That doesn’t make it right. We have to rescue this child. I say we drive on to the next big city and find a social service agency or some Christian church somewhere that will take her in.”
Jonathan replies, “Listen to the middle-class, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant girl from the burbs. You don’t even know if they have social services or Christian churches for this kid. This is not the suburbs of Chicago, you know. Don’t you see what you are doing? Don’t you realize that you have stumbled into an ancient religious community and are presuming—naively, I might add—to meddle with 3000 years of tradition? Wise up! The world is a big place and there are lots of different cultures out there you might not agree with. Besides, if you are really worried about human rights so much, there are plenty of human rights abuses right at home in the good old U.S.A. You should take care of your own back yard before you try to improve those of others.”
Susan asks, “Would it matter if this baby were abandoned in Central Park back home? Would you do something to help her then?”
Jonathan answers, “Sure, I would. But this ain’t Central Park, babe! That’s my point.”
Susan replies, “This baby is not just a hunk of meat to be tossed to some mythical god called Shiva to devour. It’s not the baby’s fault she was born an outcaste in Bihar and not Central Park. That’s is an accident of nature, not a choice of hers. So, what, Mr. Worldly Wise, does the accident of geography have to do with whether this baby has a right to grow up and live a full life?”
“So you think these people are superstitious, undeveloped, not up to your social and moral standards?,” Jonathan sarcastically asks.
Susan answers, “Whether I do or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this baby’s future is now in our hands—mine and yours!”
Jonathan replies, “No, what is relevant is that you’re just another arrogant ugly American.”
Susan turns to you, the fifth traveler, and asks, “What would you do. Why don’t you break the tie. We will do what you decide. Is that OK with everyone?”
The all agree with Susan. So what would you do and why?
*****************
In the case that you are curious, what I would probably do in such a situation is:
- convince the village to sacrifice something other than the baby's life to Shiva, and upon failing that,
- save the baby
...but what I logically concluded should be done (in a *ridiculously* long paper) is:
- convince the village to sacrifice something other than the baby's life to Shiva, and upon failing that,
- save the baby, but tell the village that the baby was sacrificed
- in a year's time, return to the village and say that the baby was saved the previous year if the village did not suffer a famine (and keep the secret otherwise)
What are your conclusions, and why/how did you come to them?
