The Prime Directive dilemma

[avevale_intelligencer]

That it is a dilemma seems beyond doubt to me. On the face of it, it looks simple, a proper protection for less technologically advanced cultures against the iniquities of colonialism. Do not interfere. Do not try to change a society to make it more like yours. Do not assume that yours is the better way. Celebrate diversity.

And then I read something like this, and I have to start to wonder.

What if a society contains elements that cannot be rationalised away as "diversity" or "an equally valid approach" or "a unique cultural identity"? What if a society contains elements that are not only unequivocally evil, but also make it all but impossible for people to do business honestly in that society?

In a country where corruption is endemic, part of the normal way of life, is it stupid to exercise integrity? Is there, indeed, any justification for trying to introduce such a (literally) outlandish concept?

In a country where, even among the supposedly educated political élite, ritual killing is just another way of seeking promotion, which is the right path: to allow that country to develop along its own lines, uncontaminated by decadent Western colonial ideologies, or to say "blast the regulations Mr Spock" and charge in with all guns blazing to stop the madness?

And, while it is certainly true that the Pentecostal missionaries who have been teaching in the area have been criminally stupid in not stamping out the native belief in "ju-ju" (possibly because when they do stamp out native beliefs people tend to raise objections for some reason), how on earth does the writer of the post manage to maintain that "Christianity is especially culpable," as though it was *all* Christianity's fault? Oh, but I forgot, it always is.

Apparently there are humanists working in the place as well, doubtless pushing the idea that there are no gods, no devils, no heavenly reward for being good or punishment for being bad, and whether you live a good life or not is entirely up to you. That'll be that sorted, then.

But if interference of any kind can ever be justified on the basis that "we think this is wrong," what happens to the Prime Directive and the legacy of colonialism? Is it possible that sometimes it's *right* to impose our culture on another? Does that perhaps mean that I'm right in thinking there are at least some absolute standards by which one can judge good and evil? Or is it just what helps the oil companies maximise their profit margins?

Thank you to filceolaire for starting this particular hare.

EDIT: It seems to me that the problem here may not be as much to do with the particular society, as with something basically human that we have a problem with ourselves; that it's not to do with whether they believe in God or believe in the ju-ju, rather with what I would once have called a pragmatic viewpoint. ("Let's see, do I want rewards in the long term, possibly after I'm dead, or in the short term, now when I need them? Gee, I'll have to think about that, that's a toughie. Oh wait...no it isn't.") Whatever you may say about Christianity, and I know many do, it can be one way of making people focus beyond their own immediate needs, and however corrupt individual church leaders and allegedly religious politicians may be, the fact that our society has been steeped in that concept for some centuries may have had some impact on the way we in general balance self and other, money now versus less tangible benefit later.

Using human sacrifice to demons as a means of political or financial advancement, in a certain moral climate, works for you whether the thing itself works or not, because the mere fact that you'll do it makes people scared of you, and fear promotes submission. And it's that that needs to be fought against, not so much the religion. Just as in America, and everywhere, even without the demons.

Comments

[rozk.livejournal.com]

The trouble with this is that the intruders will never be able to agree on what is 'tolerable' and what is 'intolerable' so that the original inhabitants will not be getting any clear message about this, and their last state will be worse than their first. This is particularly the case when the views of the intruders are evolving both in terms of their own ethical standpoint and their understanding of the nature of the social institutions of the original inhabitants, who will become proxies, often violent proxies, for debates that the intruders are having at home.

I am talking in deliberately vague terms rather than address specifics like the playing out of America's Culture Wars via the African churches, but I think you can see the applicability of my vague remarks.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes indeed. If even my flist and I can't always agree on what's right or wrong, it would be silly of me to expect a whole gaggle of governments, religious agencies and private companies to present anything like a united moral front. Even assuming they all know what one of them is.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

"unequivocally evil" is a very difficult term to apply to any society, far less a human one, and far less than that a human one with which there has been extensive contact and influence. I understand your point, and disagree with it as far as the adverb goes.

I think you've misunderstood the author's point with regard to the Christian missionaries. It's not criminal stupidity for having failed to stamp out a native belief; rather, it's an unfortunate synergy of a Christian belief with the local belief that's strengthened the local one: With Christian pastors, particularly Pentecostal, preaching that outcomes in the physical world are a result of the spiritual world, religion is implicated in obscuring the root cause of corruption. Simply, the Pentecostal teaching that one's wealth reflects one's spiritual purity (a belief seen too often in the industrialized world, or why do we have all the megachurches with their megawealthy pastors who exhort their congregations to get holier so they [the flocks] can get wealthier?) reinforces the local belief that one cannot acquire power without supernatural power (i.e., witchcraft).

That being the case, the author suggests that it's necessary to somehow dispel the belief that witchcraft is at the root of all power, and that it's necessary to go outside of religion to successfully dispel it. I disagree; I think it would be possible for religious leaders -- Christian and otherwise -- to teach a doctrine which weakens that belief without themselves committing any heresy.

I don't believe the Prime Directive is set in stone and immovable. I do believe that in many, probably most, cases, outside interference with a less technologically developed culture has caused problems in the long run; I suspect that has to do with a lack of wisdom and shortsightedness of the higher-tech culture (usually in an attempt to take financial advantage of the other).

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, I ain't one of your fancy big-city lawyers, but to me ritual killing is unequivocally an evil act, and a society that not only tolerates it but seems to run on it is a society that needs some serious sorting out, to say the very least.

And yes, I agree that Christianity could be helping rather than making it worse, hence the "criminally stupid." The church has often co-opted local beliefs when doing its missionary work (though I'm fairly sure the Countess was winding me up when she claimed that the Sacred Heart was a Christianisation of Aztec human sacrifice) but there has to be some sort of rational thought involved, not to mention a sense of whom you're preaching to.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced that ritual killings are always, unequivocally, beyond doubt, evil. I'd say that the vast majority are. But, to take one example that casts some doubt in my mind, what of the custom that "the king is the land"? Is it utterly evil to permit a man to voluntarily accept power and perks, knowing he's headed for the altar as a sacrifice? As always in this sort of deal, I maintain that the criteria are Adult, Informed, and Consensual.

That's missing the point of the article, of course, in which the killings described are evil, because they fail of at least two out of the above three.

My point was really that I didn't see the article as condemning religion qua religion, but rather that there was the unfortunate synergy of beliefs that strengthened a destructive cycle.

(I don't think that the Sacred Heart derives from Aztecs, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time Christianity borrowed or stole an idea from another faith, possibly with the intention of coopting it to weaken that faith. I'm under the impression that the intent was there for several different such borrowings, but haven't the scholarship to make the case.)

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

Your main set of questions:


"What if a society contains elements that cannot be rationalised away as "diversity" or "an equally valid approach" or "a unique cultural identity"? What if a society contains elements that are not only unequivocally evil, but also make it all but impossible for people to do business honestly in that society?"


First off who makes the 'judgements' concerning this? Who are the arbitrators, the enforcers? What authority sets up what is valid/invalid? In our modern democracies we seem to be at war over all these issues of ethics, religion, and culture and seem to find ourselves unable to come to even the most basic agreements over even the basic issue of life itself (thinking of the pro-choice/pro-life debates). At the beginning of political history we are given the death of Socrates as an example of this dilemna. Those in power within the Athenian political structure saw him as an evil influence upon the young impressionable minds of Athenian youth. He was denounced as an atheist. Before the court of Athens he made this proclamation: "Unless either philosophers become kings in our states or those who we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophical intelligence, there can be no cessation of troubles... for our states, nor I fancy, for the human race either."

The irony of his statement not withstanding centers on the view that power and authority can only be balanced by wisdom and intelligence, and if one or the other gains in ascendancy you will have war within society.

Goethe once said that "civilization is a permanent exercise in respect. Respect for the divine, the earth, for our fellow man and so for our own dignity."

In democracy we depend upon representative women and men to lead us, and to uphold the tenets of a Constitution, a contractual text that seems from generation to generation to take on the significance of a sort of secular revelation. Yes, this is a paradox, and I think that the framers intended it as such, making provision that allowed for some amendments, while disallowing others, they set up a living document that could force each generation to decide for itself what is the Good... The balance of judgement upon the veracity and enforcement of this document has been established by the balance of powers in our three branches of government: Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. At times it seems more like a war of attrition between enemies rather than a true exercise in freedom, but somehow it has worked for two hundred years or so...

So to answer your question: in our democratic society if there are elements within it that are harmful and that break the laws we do have recourse and redress through the legal systems we've enacted. Does that mean that they are neutral? That justice is always right and true? Of course not... humans find ways to subvert the laws, to carry out misjustices against individuals and the state, and vice versa; yet, the principals of justice may not be the best, but do serve as the best alternative so far.

But with all things democracy is not a static system, it is evolving and changing and hopefully, with time, it will move toward greater and greater freedom and justice. At least we hope so... as long as ideas of respect, tolerance, and human dignity remain then there is hope.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

For me, any such judgement can only be personal. I know too much history, too much myth, to be able to make blanket statements about what and what is not evil.

I know what seems evil to me and that is all I can say. Religions, on the other hand, have a habit of making up morality to confirm current beliefs in their own societies. (Most of them have condoned slavery at one time or another, and justified it in various ways because, until the Industrial Revolution, slavery was necessary to support their own societies, and therefore to support the religion involved. Likewise genocide.)

One of my favourite TV characters, in an otherwise dreadful episode, when confronted with an alien who wanted to "reward the good and punish the evil" demanded, "Who decides? Who names the good? The evil?"

It is a question at the heart of "morality". I am drawn to Wicca's golden rule - "And you harm no-one, do what you will." Which, unfortunately, begs its own question: what is harm? Who decides what is harm?

Do I know the answer? No, of course not. Do I think we follow a sort of Prime Directive rigidly? No, again - but there are too many examples of one society interfering with another, with the best of moral intention, and with dire results,for me to take any such decision lightly. Nor do I want anyone else to take such a decision lightly and, in particular, I do not want such a decision to be taken based on religious opposition!

[tattercoats.livejournal.com]

I like the idea that the very impossibility of accurately defining harm/no harm - especially before the event - is somehow implicit within the Wiccan crede. Sort of: "if it's going to cause harm, then don't. Oh, you can't tell if it will? Or to whom? Well, you'd better consider caredfully what you choose to do then, hadn't you? And carry the consequences without whining that 'you didn't know'..."

All of which I've reckoned for a long while comprises 'growing up'. Tread softly, choose wisely, and carry the results.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

The most important of which is "carry the result."

Sometimes harm is accidental, sometimes inevitable. What is should not be is unconsidered.

[batyatoon]

I'm thinking of the apocryphal (I'm told) story with the punchline that goes "We have a custom too; when people burn widows alive, we hang them."

And I'm thinking about the much-discussed subject of female genital cutting, and about the fact that there are those who consider my own people's practice of (male) infant circumcision every bit as ghastly and indefensible as I consider that.

Yeah, I got nothin'.