questions from justin

--------------------------------------------
(1) from justin: "If there is a group of people who have always been cold, would it be wrong to send them a box of heat. They don't even know about boxes of heat, it wouldn't occur to them they they didn't have one before. Further more, they have no reason not to think that cold isn't the way things should be so they have desire for heat the way we know it, and maybe they wouldn't even like it... Would it be wrong to assume they want the same thing we have just because we can't conceive of them not wanting it?"

(2) another: "There is a place where women are taught that they are inferior to men and that they are stupid. They have only ever known this and have no reason to question it, additionally they live in an oppressive social situation and are strongly discouraged from questioning it. Would it be wrong to tell some of these women that this isn't the case? Furthermore, to help them realize this physically and become self actualized even though this would severely change their culture, way of life, and actual life they have at this point? Is it presumptuous to say that our way of looking at the world (all people being equal) is the right way? Why or why not. This is obviously a different question that the previous one because it deals with human rights and social issues, and more so because it broaches the issue of absolute or subjective morality. I still think it is interesting in its own way to consider, especially before going into other cultures as an outsider."
--------------------------------------------

(1) The box of warmth

My initial response to the first sentence is: yes (it's wrong), if it's unsustainable and locally unavailable. If you show them something they can't have, you just make them want it and tease them with its potential. If they've never wanted it before, why give it to them? Who are we to say that warm is good, when they're perfectly fine with it being cold?

That also immediately reminded me of a question posed a few years ago. Something like "if there was a starving child, and you had enough water to elongate his life for one day, would you give it to him or just let him die?" I think that the answer to this question is obvious: give him the water, because the next day it's possible to come across a less limited source of water. At least there is potential for survival. However, you are promoting suffering; living on the bare minimum of water is probably not very pleasant. Though, do you think it would even be physically possible to deny yourself the water? The kid would almost physically /have/ to drink it. (I realize this example doesn't relate directly, but again, something to consider in brainstorming.)

I don't think there's a clear answer to your question. I think it just morphs into another one, rather than getting 'cleared up'. I think the question becomes: what makes warm "good"? Why would we even think of providing this to them? Think about it from their perspective: "What the hell is this? These people are crazy, giving us a totally different environment...we're used to coldness, warmth is so different. It's not how it's supposed to be, it's not how it has been, and we don't have any idea how to make it stay warm, even if we did like it." (Something like that?)

I think your last question is confusing, so I'm gonna try and work it out: "Would it be wrong to assume they want the same thing we have, just because we can't conceive of them not wanting it?" Initial response: yes, it would be wrong of us to assume. But here's more thinking: let's disregard our conceptions of them wanting it, and just focus on our assumptions. (<<>There is a place where women are taught that they are inferior to men and that they are stupid." Hmm...let's just call this "mainstream society."

"Would it be wrong to tell some of these women that this isn't the case?"
What if telling them made them so socially deviant that they would be killed?

Just because it's something they've never known, doesn't mean they have no reason to question it. I think human nature calls that into question. Oppressive regimes are generally called 'oppressive' because they're oppressing people -->who don't want to be oppressed<-- I think they probably know that other things are possible. I think 'hope' may be a generalizable ideal...that "all humans have hope for something" may be true. ...For this case, I suppose women would hope that one day their intelligence could be recognized, that they could be recognized as an entity separate from men, and not merely defined by a hierarchical relationship to them. Lots of people are told they're inferior and stupid every day. I think it's when these "inferior" and "stupid" people get together that they can realize that---related to each other at least---there are other ways to define oneself. From here, the movement will start. Again, though, if they were told "you're not really inferior to men" or "you're smart" they might respond: "No, we really are inferior. We really are not smart and we should let men control all the things that require intelligence. Our position in society is to be inferior, and if we were anything other than that, we wouldn't know what to do. We actually find it comforting to be in this position, because society reinforces this, (ok, they wouldn't say it with these words, fine) and embraces it when we are this way." Bottom line, though, coming from a group of women who recognize that they are different ways to define themselves, is much different than coming from some outsider trying to tell them that there are different ways to define themselves. ...not that the latter is wrong necessarily.