How flexible should morality be?

[SithDoughnut]

Say you discover a long lost tribe in South America. Perhaps they're the descendants of an expedition or a colonisation trip a long time ago because, while they're not a very large group (perhaps 100 or so people), they cover a range of races and types of people. The moment you visit them, they realise what you can teach them about the outside world, and they look up to you for guidance on how to improve themselves.

It's not long before you realise that this tribe is structured different to what most people consider "advanced" societies. There is a definite caste-like system going on. The women are very limited in what they can do: they're restricted to certain duties and are considered property in many ways. There is also racism, as those with darker skin are assigned to the more menial and dangerous tasks, the darker the skin, the worse the job. Those who run the tribe and gain the most from this arrangement are the lighter-skinned men, with the whitest man being the head of the tribe.

However, you soon realise that although there is rampant racism and sexism, no one seems to care. You can't tell outright if they support it or not but there is no quarrelling about it or even any grumbling. You are trusted by the tribe and already you've heard a lot of complaints about situations here but none of them have anything to do with the society they live in. They all seem to actually be happy, or at least content, with the way the tribe works. You've already explained the concept of equality and none of them seem that interested in actually applying it.

These people are looking to you for guidance, and will almost certainly do their best to follow your suggestions. Do you bring up the sexism and racism issues or let the tribal society continue the way it has been?

TL;DR: Is sexism/racism/any other immoral behaviour wrong if no one else cares about it?

 

[quatona]

TL;DR: Is sexism/racism/any other immoral behaviour wrong if no one cares about it?

In your example the observer seems to care about it very much...
When nobody cares about something the question "is it moral" won´t even come up, will it?

 

[SithDoughnut]

In your example the observer seems to care about it very much...
When nobody cares about something the question "is it moral" won´t even come up, will it?

The observer cares about it. Or doesn't care about it. You are the observer, after all, it's up to you. I'll change the wording to better reflect that.

 

[quatona]

The observer cares about it. Or doesn't care about it. You are the observer, after all, it's up to you. I'll change the wording to better reflect that.

Umm, I don´t think the wording was/is the problem.
I´m not sure I understand the question.
When I care it certainly is a moral issue to me, when I don´t it isn´t.

Are you actually asking: "When I care about something that I merely observe and am personally not directly involved in - should I take action?"?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Umm, I don´t think the wording was/is the problem.
I´m not sure I understand the question.
When I care it certainly is a moral issue to me, when I don´t it isn´t.

Are you actually asking: "When I care about something that I merely observe and am personally not directly involved in - should I take action?"?

The question is whether sexism (as an example) is wrong by virtue of being sexist, or wrong because people disagree with it or suffer under it.

 

[quatona]

The question is whether sexism (as an example) is wrong by virtue of being sexist, or wrong because people disagree with it or suffer under it.

In my opinion, any ethical/moral judgement requires a complex consideration involving a couple of different criteria (intent and result being the most important ones).
This comes with several practical problems, e.g.:
1. I can´t tell the intent of another person (oftentimes I´m not even sure I can honestly and completely tell my own intentions)
2. How do we determine "the result" of an action in a world that isn´t monocausal? Where do we look and focus when determining "the result"? At which point in time do we determine "this is the result"?
3. Results/effects/consequences can not be reliably predicted.
etc. etc.

In any case I can´t seem to see an inherent value to an action.

Personally, I don´t consider an action wrong because people disagree with it but when I disagree with it. (Doesn´t mean, though, that it is wrong because I disagree with it - rather the other way round: I disagree with it because I consider it wrong).

"Suffering" is a whole nother can of worms of its own. There´s hardly any action that can be performed without anyone feeling it causes them suffering.

 

[Skavau]

Say you discover a long lost tribe in South America. Perhaps they're the descendants of an expedition or a colonisation trip a long time ago because, while they're not a very large group (perhaps 100 or so people), they cover a range of races and types of people. The moment you visit them, they realise what you can teach them about the outside world, and they look up to you for guidance on how to improve themselves.

It's not long before you realise that this tribe is structured different to what most people consider "advanced" societies. There is a definite caste-like system going on. The women are very limited in what they can do: they're restricted to certain duties and are considered property in many ways. There is also racism, as those with darker skin are assigned to the more menial and dangerous tasks, the darker the skin, the worse the job. Those who run the tribe and gain the most from this arrangement are the lighter-skinned men, with the whitest man being the head of the tribe.

However, you soon realise that although there is rampant racism and sexism, no one seems to care. You can't tell outright if they support it or not but there is no quarrelling about it or even any grumbling. You are trusted by the tribe and already you've heard a lot of complaints about situations here but none of them have anything to do with the society they live in. They all seem to actually be happy, or at least content, with the way the tribe works. You've already explained the concept of equality and none of them seem that interested in actually applying it.

These people are looking to you for guidance, and will almost certainly do their best to follow your suggestions. Do you bring up the sexism and racism issues or let the tribal society continue the way it has been?

TL;DR: Is sexism/racism/any other immoral behaviour wrong if no one else cares about it?

You do bring up the suggestion absolutely. You suggest it continue to exist as a voluntary system and if any woman, darker skinned (or any person really) wants out of that system then it should be supported.

 

[JadeTigress]

In my opinion, if even one of them is unhappy, then action should be taken. But if they're all content with the way their society is, then leave them be. If they're all happy, I would think it would be wrong for me, as an outsider, to come in and tell them the way they've been living for however long is wrong and they have to change it, simply because I think it's wrong based on how I'm used to living. It's not like I'm moving in with them and living there for the rest of my life.