A recent story in HuffPost begins as follows:
A gay Somali teen was allegedly stoned to death on March 15, according to an advocacy group that posted about the incident online.
A Facebook group calling itself Somali Queer Community posted information and photos of the alleged stoning on its social media page Saturday. The post states that Mohamed Ali Baashi, 18, was tried and convicted of sodomy by a rebel judge from the Islamic extremist group Al-Shabab in the Barawa area of southern Somalia. In front of a crowd of villagers, Baashi was reportedly pelted with rocks until he was dead, the group’s post goes on to claim.
During the many years while I was teaching ethics the prevailing prejudice I continued to run into is that all values are relative. I call it a prejudice because it was seldom a conclusion reached after serious thought. The claim was that in ethics if those values are not relative to the individual, they are at least relative to cultures. We have been told that values are “enculturated” in us and we simply adopt the values of those around us as we grow up. If someone in another culture does something we regard as wrong who are we to say it is wrong? It’s just what they do. We hear the bromide “don’t judge another person unless you have walked a mile in his shoes.” In fact, we are constantly admonished not to be “judgmental.” But let’s take the story above as a case in point. It raises serious doubts about the viability of the whole relativism thesis: failure to judge might even be regarded as the height of irresponsibility. I have never thought that people take relativism seriously, though, they just lean on it because it is easier than thinking.
In my classes I would ask the students if they thought that the Nazis were right to “relocate” the Jews and send millions to their death. Most students would stick by their guns and say, “of course, who’s to say?” Then I would ask them if they would still believe this if they were a Jew living in Germany in the mid-thirties of the last century when the purge began. That would usually give the students pause, though I don’t know if it ever changed a single mind. But the idea was to get them thinking about a complex situation they probably never thought about before. It helps us to see evil more clearly if we imagine ourselves to be the victim.
But the story above tells us about a judicial process in Somalia in which a young gay man is found guilty of sodomy and is summarily stoned to death. The cultural relativist would say, “that’s the way they do things there. Who are we to say it’s wrong?” My response is: anyone with half a brain knows it’s wrong regardless of where or when it happened. The value of human life and the respect all human life is owed transcend cultures and makes it wrong to inflict harm on others; we have duties as moral agents to alleviate human suffering whenever possible. Now, whether or not our culture teaches us this any longer, it is the heart and soul of any viable ethical or religious system known to developed minds. The obvious conclusion in this case is that the process that found the young man guilty was flawed and the “rebel judge” handing down the judgment was blinded by prejudice. We know this happens: we see it happening on a daily basis all around us. In this regard, the Somalis are just like us and they should know better. Certain values transcend cultures.
Many think that this position smacks of “absolutism,” the claim that values are absolute and a few people know them while others do not — those few wearing clerical collars or holding degrees in philosophy no doubt. We are uncomfortable with this view and regard it as the height of intolerance, though we don’t distinguish carefully between tolerance and indifference. But while I make no claim to absolute knowledge about values, since all human knowledge is partial, there are things that are inherently wrong and simply should not be tolerated. Does this mean we should send in drones and invade Somalia with our armed forces to bring the Somali people to their knees and make them accept our way of life? Of course not. What it means is that we should all condemn the action and our hearts should go out to the young man who was stoned to death as the natural expression of sympathy for another human who was wronged apparently by what appear to be extremists — and we should hope that by making the action known through the social media the world community would condemn the action so that this sort of thing does not happen again.
Any person on this planet should be allowed to love who they want. They should be allowed to have sex with any other consenting adult no matter the sexual preference, skin colour, country of origin, or age. So many people hide behind the bible about what it right and what is wrong. Surely “thou shalt not kill” was also in the bible (I’m not going into a religious spiel here). People should be allowed to live together however they want – black, white, green, blue, yellow, purple, straight, gay, transgender, One day everybody will be able to do so. I doubt it will be in our lifetimes, but I hope I am wrong with that
It will happen, I am sure!
________________________________
Let’s hope so. I know some people who are gay and want to get married, but they can’t even go out of their state for fear of what would happen
Hugh, I wish I had been in your class. To me there are certain undeniable truths that should be planet-wide – such as all human life is sacred and people have rights to safety and security. We look to India and you still have an “untouchables class” where it is OK for young men from an upper class to have their way with the women from a lower class. This is now starting to be viewed by India leaders as a crime, but primarily because the country has been shamed from abroad.
One of the good things about the Internet is people can share their displeasure toward the assailants. Even the piece you note above is getting airplay and should, so that others can condemn it as not right. I think where it is most effective, if the shaming from abroad gets their attention that it may impact their pocket book. Companies can now get criticized for doing business with countries that condone maltreatment. Consumers can vote with their feet. Good post, BTG
It’s sad that we don’t take notice of such things until it affects our pocketbooks! I am working on a blog on this topic!
________________________________