Culture and a Man's Dying Wish
A man dies. His community's culture deems that he be buried in holy ground lest the community suffer some catastrophe. He, having always been at odds with his community on this point, has left a provision in his will that he be cremated and his ashes scattered into the ocean. The body waits in the hospital while the community debates the issue. What is to be done? The elders have asked for a moral opinion. What is one to say? If the belief that the man must be buried is one deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of the community, then a decision to cremate him would cause an uproar. On the other hand, if there are some who sympathize with the man, either decision might cause a schism within the community. The ultimate action would have to depend on much more than the culture's belief about burial. It would have to take into account the culture's beliefs on individual rights, freedom of belief, and the validity of the man's will. It would also have to take into account the moral implications of carrying out a man's dying wish and the repercussions of violating a sacred social institution. This is not a decision to be taken lightly, but by stepping back and weighing the options carefully, one can come to a conclusion which would
The question of moral relativism is central to this scenario. The man is dead, so does all this apply? The second form has been interpreted as an urging to always respect human life. On the other hand, by burying him, the community would lose nothing, and only the dead man's wishes would be violated. What of other moral principles, perhaps one which takes into account more of our moral intuition? What about Kantianism? The Kantian viewpoint argues that there is a "categorical imperative" (CI) by which all morality is judged. Utilitarianism has very little to say in favor of cremating the man. When looked at in the converse, is it not obvious that the man should be buried in the special burial ground? How can anyone judge the culture's beliefs wrong? It cannot be expected that the community take the risk of catastrophe which they believe will result from cremating the man. The second form would argue that by burying the man, the community is using him as a means for its own happiness. Each person's choice would be too influenced by his own cultural morality, and so nobody would really have a right to judge. This might be a westernized perspective, perhaps skewed by a concept of individuality that is not universal, but the idea of moral relativism still stands to say that the man cannot be judged wrong. The decision here will set a precedent for others, and the wrong one could crumble the community. How can the community possibly say that the man is wrong? The man is basing his decision on his own moral code which the community cannot confuse with its own. A decision to cremate the man would create shockwaves through the religious community, and make for a populace more difficult to control. But lacking this incentive, it is the right of the community to do as it chooses, and to preserve its culture if necessary. Further explanation can not be given here. This dilemma is a difficult one to resolve, and this is what lends the "most moral" aspect to this decision.
Common topics in this essay:
,
Kantianism Kantian,
moral relativism,
man's wishes,
decision cremate,
immoral ignore,
beliefs individual,
individual rights,
immoral ignore community,
man's dying wish,
beliefs individual rights,
man's dying,
burying community,
elders elders,
buried special,
buried special burial,
special burial ground,
|
Acceptance Essays
