I'm an anthropology student and this comes up for anthropologists a lot. My professor takes students to Fiji in the summers. Fiji is famous for its former practice of cannibalism. They supposedly stopped this practice 50 years ago, but there are still some Elders left who remember the old ways. If my professor and/or her students found out they were still practicing cannibalism, would it be their moral responsibility to stop it?
It's their job to observe, study, and report their findings on this culture, and intervening would drastically change the behavior of the subjects. The scientific side of what they do actually obligates them NOT to intervene. Cultural relativism (not to be confused with the philosophical position of moral relativism) is supposed to be central to the anthropological method - that is, trying not to judge other cultures by our own culture's standards.
On the other hand, they would most likely have the personal conviction that cannibalism is not just morally wrong, but one of the most heinous things a human can do to another.
Personally, I think either response would be acceptable, if the lack of intervention was for SCIENCE and the intervention was for GOOD.
Most people don't have the professional/scientific responsibilities an anthropologist has. I think in that case, they don't really have a very good reason not to intervene when they see something that strikes them as morally wrong.
It's their job to observe, study, and report their findings on this culture, and intervening would drastically change the behavior of the subjects. The scientific side of what they do actually obligates them NOT to intervene. Cultural relativism (not to be confused with the philosophical position of moral relativism) is supposed to be central to the anthropological method - that is, trying not to judge other cultures by our own culture's standards.
On the other hand, they would most likely have the personal conviction that cannibalism is not just morally wrong, but one of the most heinous things a human can do to another.
Personally, I think either response would be acceptable, if the lack of intervention was for SCIENCE and the intervention was for GOOD.
Most people don't have the professional/scientific responsibilities an anthropologist has. I think in that case, they don't really have a very good reason not to intervene when they see something that strikes them as morally wrong.
