cultural defense

[kasia]

h.h. seemed to be taking a cultural defense stance in the sexual harassment thread...which i found pretty interesting--

there's actually village in asia where the guys will kidnap whoever they want to marry and rape her--only it isn't be called "rape", of course--it's actually acceptable. anyhow, one of the guys from this village came to the u.s. (i think this is an 80's case). he saw a pretty girl he liked, kidnapped her, and raped her. <--would you consider him morally blameworthy?

my answer would be 'nope'...what's yours?

[thaite]

I'd say, Yup.

Would you consider it morally agreeable for me to have sex with children, seeing as I'm from Thailand?

[kasia]

Originally posted by buoywonder@Oct 28 2002, 07:07 AM
I'd say, Yup.

Would you consider it morally agreeable for me to have sex with children, seeing as I'm from Thailand?
sorry, i neglected to mention three important details. one was that the guy had only been in the u.s. for three weeks prior to the incident. the other is that, in his village, it was common for women to scream and resist when "kidnapped". finally, his victim was also another girl from his village, but she had been in the u.s. for a much longer time and was pretty americanized by the time the incident occurred.

[Craig]

Are the participants in this incident Kazakh ? If you want people to make a more informed decision, perhaps they can look up some of the customs and traditions (including marriage) of the group involved.

However, beside that point, my answer is that the person is in this country and should obey the laws of this country. This isn't exactly a minor infraction.

Btw, I don't think it's against the law to eat people in Indonesia. Would you feel the same way if that was the law that was broken ?



<!--EDIT|Craig|Oct 28 2002, 09:26 AM-->

[kasia]

Originally posted by Craig@Oct 28 2002, 09:25 AM
Are the participants in this incident Kazakh ? If you want people to make a more informed decision, perhaps they can look up some of the customs and traditions (including marriage) of the group involved.

However, beside that point, my answer is that the person is in this country and should obey the laws of this country. This isn't exactly a minor infraction.

Btw, I don't think it's against the law to eat people in Indonesia. Would you feel the same way if that was the law that was broken ?
right. but we're not talking about whether one should or should not obey the law. rather, the issue is whether he should be held *morally* accountable committing a crime without knowing that it is a crime--and having a good reason for his ignorance.

[Craig]

Well, the guy was brought up in another society and his judgement of "acceptable actions" is primarily shaped from his experiences in that society. The only person that is going to hold him "morally accountable" is his own conscious. That being said, obviously he probably found nothing wrong with the situation or else he probably wouldn't have engaged in the questionable action. If he found nothing wrong with his actions, what is his exposure to the law in the USA going to do to change his beliefs. Probably not much.

Btw, I don't believe law coincides with moral beliefs.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 28 2002, 09:30 AM
the issue is whether he should be held *morally* accountable committing a crime without knowing that it is a crime--and having a good reason for his ignorance.
so what defines a "good reason?"

[kasia]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Oct 28 2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 28 2002, 09:30 AM
the issue is whether he should be held *morally* accountable committing a crime without knowing that it is a crime--and having a good reason for his ignorance.
so what defines a "good reason?"
the fact that he had only been in the u.s. three weeks. in a sense, he had the less knowledge of what was and was not socially acceptable here than children, even toddlers.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kasia@Oct 28 2002, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Oct 28 2002, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Oct 28 2002, 09:30 AM
the issue is whether he should be held *morally* accountable committing a crime without knowing that it is a crime--and having a good reason for his ignorance.
so what defines a "good reason?"
the fact that he had only been in the u.s. three weeks. in a sense, he had the less knowledge of what was and was not socially acceptable here than children, even toddlers.
well let's see, the guy hops on a plane, comes halfway around the world, to a country where he can't understand the language and where everything looks incredibly different than his rural village, and we're to believe he honestly assumed that socially acceptable over here means the same thing as socially acceptable from back home?

Maybe he doesn't know what IS socially acceptable in the US, but common sense would indicate that when you're ten thousand miles from home, you tread a bit more lightly and learn the ropes of the new society you're in before making any drastic moves like trying to get married.

[ChinaLama]

I don't believe in an ontologically knowable absolute morality (wow, i just used i word that i have NO idea what the meaning is :P), but i do believe we have to go by each society's morality; otherwise it'd be chaos. So he should still be held morally accountable for rape. Perhaps, legally, his sentence should be reduced seeing as how ignorance may be a mitigating factor, but what he did is still *wrong,* just less wrong than if he had been raised here and taught that rape is wrong.

On a more possibly cultural imperialist argument, I'd say that aspect of his culture is bad and should be eradicated. After all, in various times and places, it was acceptable to kill women for suspected adultery, own slaves, have sex with underage boys, and a whole host of what today we'd consider morally suspect behavior. Should those behaviors then *never* be considered wrong since vast societies have done them before, so there is no logical reason why they became wrong over time?

[tapestrybabe]

kasie...
i find it odd that you wouldnt see this man guilty.. knowing how your for human rights and everything... i mean, you were the one that encouraged ppl to sign a petition for saving this nigerian woman's life from getting stoned... cuz she got pregnant out of wedlock... And even tho that in Nigeria... that was their culture of how they dealt with punishment... you felt it was still wrong... and i see it as wrong too... and when it comes to Kidnapping and RAPING another woman or anybody... i see it as something VERY wrong... no matter if its socially accepted in a different country or whateverz and its their practice... I feel, that type of stuff shouldnt be seen as acceptable.. no matter what...

me, not only do i see this man guilty.. but i see that particular asian village as being guilty for practicing violating another female like that....



<!--EDIT|tapestrybabe|Oct 29 2002, 01:08 PM-->

[artsfartsyjanet]

I am not fully knowledgeable about this group of people. Do the women find it acceptable to be (in our notion of the word) "raped"? Do the women know that it is a "custom" to be kidnapped by someone who wants to marry them? And because of this custom, has this behavior from men become the norm or a socially acceptable phenomenon? Reason I ask is because....

I vaguely remember a culture somewhere in the African continent in which the men are ostracized from the females while they're young, and the older men "initiate" them into manhood by engaging in intercourse with the young boys. This society finds it socially acceptable, or would you call it pedophilia or statutory rape/incest?

Because this man was raised in a society ignorant of the values of inherent in the U.S., I don't think he is morally accountable (under jurisdiction) given his vastly different upbringing, but because he is in this country, the laws of this country should apply.

What prompted this man to live in the U.S. in the first place?



<!--EDIT|artsfartsyjanet|Oct 29 2002, 10:36 AM-->

[VV o n g B a]

i believe this describes a hmong custom. but if there are any hmong on this board, call me out on this if i'm wrong...

[kasia]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Oct 29 2002, 03:15 PM
i believe this describes a hmong custom. but if there are any hmong on this board, call me out on this if i'm wrong...
you're right.

[kasia]

Originally posted by tapestrybabe@Oct 29 2002, 08:20 AM
kasie...
i find it odd that you wouldnt see this man guilty.. knowing how your for human rights and everything... i mean, you were the one that encouraged ppl to sign a petition for saving this nigerian woman's life from getting stoned... cuz she got pregnant out of wedlock... And even tho that in Nigeria... that was their culture of how they dealt with punishment... you felt it was still wrong... and i see it as wrong too... and when it comes to Kidnapping and RAPING another woman or anybody... i see it as something VERY wrong... no matter if its socially accepted in a different country or whateverz and its their practice... I feel, that type of stuff shouldnt be seen as acceptable.. no matter what...

me, not only do i see this man guilty.. but i see that particular asian village as being guilty for practicing violating another female like that....
i never made any judgment on his act--i never said the act itself was not morally repugnant. *his* moral culpability, however, is something different.

[nonamerasian]

I don't believe in an ontologically knowable absolute morality (wow, i just used i word that i have NO idea what the meaning is :P), but i do believe we have to go by each society's morality; otherwise it'd be chaos. So he should still be held morally accountable for rape. Perhaps, legally, his sentence should be reduced seeing as how ignorance may be a mitigating factor, but what he did is still *wrong,* just less wrong than if he had been raised here and taught that rape is wrong.

On a more possibly cultural imperialist argument, I'd say that aspect of his culture is bad and should be eradicated. After all, in various times and places, it was acceptable to kill women for suspected adultery, own slaves, have sex with underage boys, and a whole host of what today we'd consider morally suspect behavior. Should those behaviors then *never* be considered wrong since vast societies have done them before, so there is no logical reason why they became wrong over time?

I agree.