|
A study that appeared in a 2005
issue of Boston review shows how morality is not simply a matter of yes or no
but can have other sides we don't think of very often. Consider, for instance,
you've been designated best man at a friend's wedding responsible for carrying
the rings that would ultimately solemnise the event. A few days before the
ceremony you travel out of town by bus and, just before returning, discover that
your wallet - along with all the money, credit cards and return tickets - has
been stolen. Cashless, friendless and alone in a strange city you desperately
need to get back with the rings or the marriage will not take place.
At the bus depot you ask people
to lend you the necessary amount saying you're basically an honest god-fearing
family man who will return the loan first thing the next day. But people think
you're simply a con job trying to gyp them and don't oblige. With just minutes
to go before the bus leaves you notice a well-dressed man dropping his wallet
while getting into a fancy limo which immediately drives away. Since no one sees
this happening, you reason that instead of taking it to the police, you could
temporarily avail of the cash in it and return everything later to the owner.
After all he seemed rich enough not to miss the amount for so short a duration.
In questionnaires of moral
reasoning, the majority of American adults and children answered that their
judgement on this issue came down narrowly, but firmly, against taking the
money. They justified their choice in terms of justice and fairness, maintaining
that it was not right to harm a stranger - even in a minor way. However, when
the same question was posed in Mysore in India, 85% of adults and 98% of
children said the money could indeed be taken temporarily in order to attend the
wedding. They were focused on the importance of personal relationships and
contractual obligations, and on the relatively small harm done to the stranger
in contrast to the much broader harm that would be befall the wedding.
So there it is: two culturally
different reasonings. One can, literally, either take it or leave it. Yet
apparently not so in another part of the world. An elder in a Maisin village in
Papua New Guinea was able to see the situation from a third perspective which
focused on collective responsibility. He rejected the dilemma saying, "If nobody
in the community helped him and so he had to take the money, I would say it was we
who had caused that problem." |
