|
I don't understand this kind of reasoning. If someone in this tribe gets cut, and the cut gets a bacterial infection, would that person be better off with or without penicillin? If you think without, then you and I are using a sense of the word "better" that is simply unfathomable to me.
Communication, progress, advancement of knowledge, trade, these are the normal practices of human society, and you'd better have a damn good reason for preventing them. The prevention of them costs lives - not theoretical, notional lives, actual people who die because we did not share with them knowledge that would have saved them.
Why is the act of forced cultural isolation in Myanmar a moral outrage, while in this case it's some higher "enlightened" obligation to withhold from these people the incalculable benefits of participation in human society.
|