A difficult question dealing with ethics

[Jonluw]

The question would've been more interesting to me if she was indeed held against her will.
Moral relativism and cultural imperialism and all that.

In any case: If she wasn't held against her will, I would definitely not intervene. That would accomplish nothing.
If anything, I would perhaps start a campaign to disincetivice such traditions; although that might be difficult in a world without mass media.

 

[Asita]

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.

Really? You'd volunteer your men's lives on their behalf, risk an international incident and war for the sake of stopping a single woman from (as the hypothetical put it) committing ritual suicide of her own volition? Not to be demeaning, but how exactly do you figure that balances out? Is the life of one woman really more important than that of the multitude you risk by intervening? Intervening in the described scenario isn't an act of compassion, it is one of recklessness. If the only life risked in this was that of the officer trying to stop it then you might have an argument, but given the terms of the hypothetical the path of least bloodshed is obviously not the one where you interceed.

 

[seraphy]

Sorry, would me just being smug like you and saying "No, you disagree with me so that means you don't get the difference!" be better? I'm sure that makes a great argument instead.

Wasn't an ad hominem anyway. I didn't attack you instead of giving an argument. It might not be worded nicely to pander to your ego, but the obvious message is that I do get the difference and there's no reason to say otherwise except you not liking my conclusion.

And I hope you have a terrible day since you had to bring this down to simply claiming I don't get it without any support. When you resort to such silly tactics things can no longer go anywhere productive. At least not while you're being so childish.

I don't know if I should comment anymore, but well let's try.

You try to argue you weren't using ad hominem, yet again you end your argument with ad hominem. Seriously now.

 

[The Preened Mr. Fust]

This what-if scenario I feel could have done better if fleshed out more, leaving less to guessing.

Either way, if it is the direction of free will and brings no undue harm to others I would take a hands-off approach to this instance as well as distancing myself from the issue entirely.

Afterall, I certainly don't approve and wouldn't want anything to do with it for fear of saying or doing the wrong thing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would try to stamp out this practice, however, there's not much in the way of stamping I can morally do.

If she wants to kill herself, there's not much I can say to change her mind...if others are telling her she must, there's things I can do about them.

 

[JesterRaiin]

What would you do?

Similar situation is featured in this movie :
http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0346457/

This one is about widows in India :
http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0240200/

I recommend to watch them both.

As for me ?
I'm against sati. No burning alive people on my watch, FTW.
And yes, i'd stop it even despite wife's wish. Why ? To stop the tradition.

 

[Sonicron]

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.

Your idea of action in this case is anachronistic; you're applying your 21st-century code of morals to a situation set in the 18th century. Back then, the kind of military governor you're talking about wouldn't have given two shits about one life being willingly ended, seeing how a) mortality rates were much higher than nowadays anyway and b) it wasn't even someone of your own ethnicity.
The only reason I could see for an intervention would be if the governor (i.e. me) had some kind of imperious mandate to 'bring culture to the heathens' by exchanging their values and traditions with those of my country (by force, if necessary).

 

[mellemhund]

Isn't it the same when we try to stop circumcision in Africa? Going in with an army is hardly ever going to solve the situation. It might even make the said tradition into a symbol of national resistance and then what have you actually achieved?

A campaign of educating the population, striking deals with the people in charge and gradually removing the tradition seems like the kind of solution I would support.

But starting a possible revolt is not going to be in your interest nor your commanders for that sake. As others have pointed out the cost of lives would far outweigh the one you may or may not have saved.

And while one could argue, that it could prevent this death to spur on the killing/ expected suicide of other women, I don't see that as the only possible outcome (see above with symbol of resistance)

Burning people are wrong, but so are indoctrinating kids to a certain belief and all that. And the path for state interfering to the point of totalitarianism is always argued from the point of it being good for the population.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

I certainly wouldn't like it. Suicide is, generally, a very poorly reasoned-out act, as demonstrated by all the unsuccessful attempts and horribly painful ways that people try to do it.

The situation is simplified somewhat, though, by the fact that both he and she are old. In modern countries and modern times, those couples who actually make it to where a natural, old-age-type death parts them typically aren't parted for long... once the spouse goes, either remaining partner typically loses the will to live and just quietly passes away shortly... perhaps a month or a year later. The fact that we could probably prevent this, via the application of certain stimulants or what have you, is not brought up because we see it as natural... if you're over 90 and your spouse has just died, well... what ARE you hanging around for? Is it necessarily a bad thing that you're ready to die now?

Obviously, self-immolation is a good deal more direct. However, this is not a rash decision made by a teenager who just can't face another final exam, this is a 90 year old woman who has lived the life she wanted, with the man she wanted, and wants to follow him rather than live out the few, grief-ladden years she has left.

Gotta go with the inaction here.

 

[bmasta]

stopping the burning might be morally justifiable according to the 18th century British standards. but nothing guarantees it is with the locals. And since you're an occupying force you can't risk upsetting the occupied people. you don't need riots because of some broad who was willing to kill herself. That and the force of traditions would cause her death by suicide or assassination. i don't really think it is about political correctness. you're just trying to avoid to fuck up a tense situation. The sepoys rebelled in India for a funny reason: they didn't want cartridges containing pork in their guns (). better to just lay low and let them have their fun

 

[Auron225]

Admittedly Id feel crap about it, but Id let her do it. If it risks war where many more could die, and especially if she is willing, then its not worth the risk of interfering. As someone else said, if she didn't want to do it but felt she had to due to custom, Id do my homework about where it originated from and try to reason with them (although I know the odds of success with that are slim, Id still try).

 

[The Funslinger]

It's their tradition and I'm in a tricky situation. I'd have to let it happen.

It might sound harsh, but even if she was unwilling. War would apparently be the consequence, and you sometimes have to make tough decisions. As horrible as it is for them to burn an unwilling girl alive, the violent uproar resultant from stopping it would be worse.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

There's no moral dilema here. Infact i'd suggest it was wrong to impose your idea that suicide is wrong, because who's to say that you are right?

Personally with my current 21st centuary mind, no i would not stop this, i'd maybe try and talk her out of making a rash decision, or try and convince them that the tradition might not be the best one.. but i wouldnt stop her if she had made her mind up.

However, if i was an 18th centuary British officer, the chances are i'd consider the locals and their customs to be savage, and i'd hardly care for my soldiers lives. I'd care more about imposing civilised behaviour on the locals so yes i'd probably stop the woman commiting suicide and then i'd be happy fighting a war because of it.

 

[Faulty Turmoil]

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?

I think that people base their morals on what feels right, or what they've been told by other people. Secondly, she is allowed to take her life because it's her's. It's like destroying property that belongs to you, albeit more extreme, it's your stuff so you can do what you want.
Thirdly, didn't you say that you could risk war if you tried to stop this? This would mean many more lives would be lost in addition to her's, because she would probably kill herself anyway or be killed in the resulting conflict. Also, you asked what is more important than a human life? Implying that you value the lives of people quite highly yes? So why would you risk countless more people getting killed in a war over one person who has decided to end her life?

Of course I'm looking at this mathematically and cold-heartedly, but any other way seems a waste or just silly to me.

 

[Thyunda]

I would send a small squad of armed men to oversee the funeral. They will not stop the widow burning herself alive. I just want the natives to know that, not only am I well aware of this practice, that I am deliberately not stopping them despite having the power to do so. Otherwise they might get to thinking they're subverting me somehow.

And should the widow have a change of heart, or a sudden realisation that maybe it wasn't entirely her decision...well...now there's a group of soldiers right there to make sure she receives no punishment for betraying tradition.

 

[The Night Angel]

Fairly straight forward, if she wants to end her life, she will succeed, one way or another. So, just make sure it's what she wants, try to talk her out of it, but make no attempts to forcibly prevent her carrying out the tradition.