Savagery isn't quite the right word, but it's definitely different from "another way of looking at things" in my eyes. Obviously these primitive people //literally have// a different perspective, but I'm less inclined to accept their viewpoint because they've been shut in from the rest of the world. Maybe the people only have that perspective because they've never been exposed to anything else? I never even knew religion was a thing until I was exposed to different religions and the concept of not having one, I just assumed everyone believed in the Christian God. I'd say my take on religion is more important now than it was then, because I was actually exposed to other ideas and was able to make up my own mind. I wouldn't label this tribe as simply another culture. It's a completely undeveloped culture that was never allowed the experience of being exposed to other cultures. Some things are incorrect that could be filtered out through exposure to other cultures. Some tribes believe that for a man and woman to have a child, then man must continually mate with the woman, making the baby over a period of time. Another culture doesn't believe sex and reproduction are related at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Modern science knows and has proven both of these things to be false. I don't know why nothing I've said so far can adequately get across my point. I guess what I'm trying to say is that though they are another culture, they aren't quite equal. It is possible for them to have incorrect beliefs and practices. The culture may not even exist if its members have been exposed to other cultures; they may find something they agree with more. Take Buddhism, for example. I think they are great because their beliefs have been well-examined, and they have examined other beliefs. However, they also stick to the notion that if science proves an aspect of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will change to reflect this. They are developed, they are conditioned, they have more information to work with, and people still follow their teachings. This hypothetical culture has none of that, and is stuck in their own little world. We can't chalk up everything they do to simply being different; some of it may amount to ignorance and simply not knowing any other way.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Do you accept the same possibility that cannibalism might be the enlightened path and, that because of the western taboo, our scientist have never checked to see if we all should eat our dead? It might have a health benefit, or it might be the real key to the afterlife, perhaps you can not be "reborn" unless you are consumed by your tribe (or insert some other "outrageous" idea.)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I feel like one doesn't necessarily prove the other. Normally, right and wrong are judged by whether or not it's beneficial to the human race, and your example is mostly neutral (because it's assumed that the meat would be taken from already dead people, not people who were killed for that purpose, and excluding the point above about prions making it likely for them to die). Something that directly interferes with the success and survival of the human race is wrong, but anything either beneficial or neutral I feel is not wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago