<p>For my Georgetown School of Foreign Service essay, I argued that the suffering of people as a result of persecution of witchs in the Central African Republic outweighs the cultural value of such beliefs, and therefore groups in the West should seek to intervene and educate people about the falsehood of their beliefs. I directly referred to moral relativism and said that it was a valid viewpoint, but it does not outweigh practical concerns about real suffering.</p>
<p>Is this not a politically correct argument? Could someone take it the wrong way? I understand that someone who is ignorant of other cultures could come to the same conclusion, though I think have explained my reasoning thoroughly. I was careful to leave my beliefs about religion in general out of the discussion, but I am not aware if there is any discrimination against people for being outspoken moral realists…</p>
<p>Here is the bad news: Your sentence above “Falsehood of their beliefs” is pretty damning stuff (IMHO). Imagine a Muslim college student writing a paper about the suffering of Christians in Arab Countries, and if they should intervene and educate the Christians about the “Falsehood of their beliefs”.</p>
<p>Regardless of political correctness, it certainly shows a narrowness of view, and regardless of how careful you were to leave out your beliefs and religion in general, you make your position very clear. Calling yourself an “outspoken moral realist” only cements the point. Sorry. This is how I see it. History is filled with examples of people fighting and dying for what they believe in. Some are hero’s some are fools. Jews, Christians, Muslims etc all have examples of this. So who decides who is to be glorified or riduculed?</p>
<p>The good news is, most colleges recognize that as a Senior in High School, your brain is still not formed, so any global view is a good sign that you occasionally turn off the xbox.</p>
<p>The better news is that Georgetown is so conservative, and Christian based, the readers might not even see the glaring double standard you write above.</p>
<p>Thank you for your contribution, but I do not believe that you entirely understood my question. I was looking for opinions and whether or not certain moral views I considered acceptable. I was not looking for a judgement on whether my views are correct, and I am somewhat offended that you assume they are the result of ignorance or mental deficiency.</p>
<p>I see no problem in discussing the falsehood of the belief that children are responsible for the spread of AIDS, especially when this belief leads to children being cast out of their homes. I don’t see how you can find Christianity or Islam equivalent to this in any way.</p>
<p>Georgetown’s reputation as a conservative, Christian university should not be a factor here. I am a left-leaning atheist, but I respect cultural values and traditions. I do not respect untrue propositions about the natural world that lead to human suffering.</p>
<p>I don’t want to get into a lengthy debate about this because this board is not the place. However, I would prefer if people did not try to teach me of the error of my ways. I have elaborated on my position not to be rude or to try to prove anyone wrong, but because I want it to be understood that I have thought my position through and that the above interpretation of what I have proposed is not correct.</p>
<p>OP, you asked if someone could take your essay the wrong way? And yes, Imontoya answered. If you directly stated that the practice and beliefs of people of CAR is “falsehood” in your essay, it may be interpreted as culturally insensitive. </p>
<p>Recently, you have mentioned that you targeted the belief of “children as the cause of AIDS”; so your argument becomes clearer and more understandable.</p>
<p>I don’t know what is politically correct or incorrect, but as a woman from a country where there is custom of men kidnapping women against their will for marriage, I think it is OK to say such customs are wrong. I think in the West there is more of a focus on rights of the individual over culture and traditions of the group. But sometimes culture is just the expression of the views of the most powerful within that society. There do need to be individual protections and minimum standards for the less powerful. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was meant to be just that - universal. Maybe it is the best way to educate people whose cultural traditions, such as female genital mutilation or bride kidnapping, interfere with human rights, is to teach them about importance and universality of those rights, instead of focusing on falsehood of their beliefs.</p>
<p>Cholpon: I totally agree with you. And perhaps I read the OP’s assertion wrong.
There are witches in Central Africa>>>>Agreed (fact)
These witches are being persecuted.>>>Agreed (fact)
The West should intervene.>>>Agreed. (We should help)
We should educate people >>>Agreed
about the falsehood of their beliefs.>>>Here is where the road forks.</p>
<p>I took this to mean we shold educate the witches about the falsehood of their beliefs, encourage them to discard generations of hisotry/religion/culture, and assimilate into acceptable society. If this is the OP’s arguement/Essay, I think it is not only politically incorrect, it is simply wrong thinking.</p>
<p>If however, he meant that we should educate (the) people (that are causing the suffering) about the falsehood of their beliefs, then I am in agreement.</p>
<p>Re-reading his questions (above), (not his essay), I am still not sure.</p>
<p>The examples you give (kidnapping, mutilation) require attention and intervention on behalf of the victims, certainly, and in any and all forms. But I think we agree that asking the victim to stop being a female, or to not look at it as “Kidnapping” or genital mutilation, but as something acceptable would be wrong. In any case, blaming a victim or asking the victim to change is not the moral or right thing to do.</p>
<p>Imontoya: Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think we are mostly in agreement on this issue, but I have not explained the situation well.</p>
<p>There are few if any witches in these countries. If there were, I would be advocating for their protection. The problem is quite different: random people are being accused of witches in order to act as scapegoats for problems. If a parent becomes ill, a child might be accused of causing the illness with magic and cast out. </p>
<p>This is not the victims fault. Rather, the problem is that people do not understand the real causes of things and instead attribute them to magic. This leads them to persecute others. Thus, I proposed we should teach them the real causes of problems and dispel their belief in witches. If people do not believe in witchcraft, they will not lynch (alleged) witches.</p>
<p>So, I am not asking for the victims to change. However, I am proposing that a secular, Western belief (science is correct and magic is incorrect) be imposed on a certain group of people. I consider this practice culturally insensitive as a general rule, but I was suggesting an example of where there may be an exception.</p>
<p>Before submitting my essay I made revisions to make it abudantly clear that the accused witches were not at fault and the main source of the problem was the lack of educational services provided by the government. I think it is important to recognize the difference between a cultural belief like “we should dress in a certain way” which is harmless and a matter of opinion, and “black magic exists and we should kill those who practice it” which is both incorrect and harmful to people.</p>
<p>Yes, I see that now. Totally my mistake in reading it a different way. I hope you can see where with my reading of your statement, what motivated my reply.</p>
<p>Hope you get in. I would love to read the essay.</p>
<p>I think your argument could have been more nuanced–you’re right, it is culturally insensitive to tell people that they’re wrong to believe certain things. Saying that a people’s beliefs and cultural values should be interfered with because its culture is uncivilized from your point of view is, I hope you realize, a statement scarily reminiscent of the rhetoric employed by 19th-century British apologists for colonialism. You’re advocating “imposing” something on someone, which is a big no-no in the 21st century. (Or at least it should be.)</p>
<p>You could have worded your argument in a less inflammatory way, and perhaps given more thought to a. the political implications of interfering with another sovereign country’s internal affairs just because you find its efforts to deal with a certain social issue unsatisfactory, or b. the negative effect this proposed “re-education” would have on the people you’re re-educating–maybe you could have turned to the histories of America and Australia for evidence here, or even China and Eastern Europe (forcing a sudden reversal of cultural values creates a moral vacuum, blah blah blah), and weighed the relative merits of the eradication of this one prejudice against the social collapse it might bring about. As I haven’t read your essay, however, I can’t actually comment on it; maybe you have mentioned these things in it.</p>
<p>Essentially, what you seem to be saying is, “They are <em>wrong</em> because they’re killing people, and I don’t care about cultural relativity! Their beliefs are barbaric–let’s go there and make them stop being such savages!!!” Which is a somewhat reductive and narrow way of looking at the problem. This is not to say that letting people die for nothing is acceptable; I simply think that there are better ways of going about stopping this practice than uprooting the culture that’s produced it.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, I don’t think this will harm your chances. As someone said, the mere fact that you’ve taken a stance on the subject at all is a good thing. And your position, while not one I agree with, is shared by many people and a number of governments, including the one Georgetown is more or less beholden to.</p>