5

I've been reading some of the wikis about the uncontacted peoples of the world and the often repeated attempts to establish contact with a a number of them even after being rebuffed (sometimes violently). Should these peoples have a right to complete privacy and isolation? Or is it unethical to not integrate them into modern civilisation?

Edit: As a corollary question, take for example a completely isolated island in the middle of a vast ocean where an uncontacted tribe resides. Should an offer of contact even be made to them?

coleopterist
  • 686
  • 2
  • 6
  • 18
  • 2
    In asking, *do* they have a right to privacy, as opposed to *should* they have a right to privacy, I think you are asking more of a legal question than an ethical one. There is, after all, a big distinction between one's ethical universe and one's reality. – SAHornickel Dec 19 '12 at 03:11
  • 1
    just noting that privacy ties in with sovereignty. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 19 '12 at 17:04
  • Concerning the edit: What do you mean when you say "should"? In the heading, you ask whether or not they have the right. That can be answered with different approaches of practical philosophy. But when you say "should", what kind of answer do you expect? Are you talking about fairness? About economical considerations? – iphigenie Dec 20 '12 at 12:07
  • @iphigenie I'm talking purely on ethical terms. Should any contact even be made with them? Or conversely, why should we contact them at all? – coleopterist Dec 20 '12 at 13:06
  • @SAHornickel I've updated the question accordingly. Thank you. – coleopterist Dec 20 '12 at 17:59
  • @SAHornickel I actually think it's the other way around. When we ask if they *should* have that right, it's a question of positive law and weighing of interests. When we ask whether they do have these rights, it's more than just positive law, then we're talking philosophy. – iphigenie Dec 20 '12 at 19:04
  • @coleopterist I really don't know what you mean by "purely ethical". You're asking whether we **should** grant them these rights. So they don't already have them, as humans. But what isn't natural law is positive law (I might be mistaken here, correct me), and thinking about whether or not granting somebody a right doesn't seem to be a philosophical question. – iphigenie Dec 20 '12 at 19:09
  • 1
    @iphigenie I can actually see it both ways. When the question is "do they", an implicit follow-up question seems to be "According to which third-party?". When the question is "should they", it seems to be more of a question of personal judgement or philosophy. Perhaps, I should have _do_ in the title and _should_ in the body :) In any event, your answer addresses my intended question admirably. – coleopterist Dec 20 '12 at 19:14
  • Point noted, but it is worth considering that I said law and not normative jurisprudence. A right, in practice, only exists as a part of law. A person does not possess a right unless explicitly proscribed by law. To ask if a person does possess a right is a question that can only be answered according to the letter of the law. – SAHornickel Dec 20 '12 at 20:30

2 Answers2

2

If you're asking about the moral aspects of forcing them into society, there are different approaches you could look at:

In general, social contract theories assume that the act of joining society has to be 1) voluntarily 2) out of self-interest 3) based on strict reciprocity. As society makes demands on you, your rights and your behaviour, it seems plausible that you should have to agree to that in advance. We would then conclude that they do have the right to remain outside the society. You can find that thought expressed in the three major social contract theories, namely the Leviathan, Locke's Treatises and Rousseau's Social Contract.

A different example is Kant, who claimed that there's a moral obligation to leave the state of nature and that one may use force to make others join a legal state. There must be a legal relation between all human beings who could interact with one another or have influence on others (which, today, is pretty much everyone). According to Kant, they would not have a right to remain the way they are then, and in fact, I think that's plausible: They demand property and to be left alone. These claims are dealt with legally, and as soon as they are legal persons, they are part of society. Of course the native tribe (e.g.) is a society in itself. The "problem" is that Kant claims that the same applies to communities/states. They, too, need a legal relation to deal with differing interests. You can find some details here or in the first part of Metaphysics of Morals. On the relation between states, have a look at The Perpetual Peace, a very interesting short book.

This are just two examples how your question could be answered, I bet there are other approaches I didn't think of. I wish to add that, whether we agree with these approaches or not, I find them much more satisfying than an answer that is based purely on rational considerations.

iphigenie
  • 2,431
  • 2
  • 22
  • 37
  • You mention that they claim property, which is a legal matter. Our legal system allows humans to own land. But this concept isn't true for all cultures. Some cultures may just be happy to live on the land, but don't claim to own land, just as animals can live on land, without having to claim it. – Kenshin Dec 19 '12 at 09:55
  • Why is an argument based on appeal to authority better than an argument based on rationality. I'm sure both Kant and Locke would say that a rational argument trumps all. – Kenshin Dec 19 '12 at 09:57
  • @Chris Yes, sure, I mean that they try to keep it intact, to keep corporations out, the forests unharmed etc. And the ones that are kept out, they will use the legal way to get what they want, which makes the natives legal persons in a legal dispute. – iphigenie Dec 19 '12 at 09:57
  • Yes, but the invaders "legal dispute" isn't recognised by the natives, and therefore from the perspective of the natives they aren't legal persons. – Kenshin Dec 19 '12 at 09:59
  • I didn't mean that relying on authorities is better, I meant that I find theoretical arguments of why they do or don't have these rights more interesting than consequentialist calculation. – iphigenie Dec 19 '12 at 10:01
  • 1
    @Chris I'm not sure that actually matters. They might not join the dispute, they might not feel part of society. That doesn't mean society doesn't absorb them. Depends on the perspective, I guess. – iphigenie Dec 19 '12 at 10:03
  • You are taking the perspective of your society. When you say "society" you think civilised society. When they think "society", they think of their community and civilised society as invasive intruders. You are assuming that civilised society trumps their community, but they will disagree. – Kenshin Dec 19 '12 at 10:05
  • 1
    let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/6783/discussion-between-iphigenie-and-chris) – iphigenie Dec 19 '12 at 10:07
  • What good is a theoretical argument, if it leads you to make a decision that has terrible consequences? In practical matters such as these, a consequential argument is better. – Kenshin Dec 19 '12 at 10:07
  • 1
    I don't think the Kantian argument is quite right. Surely the uncontacted tribe is a society, and a legal entity in itself. Each person in this society has moved from a state of nature to live 'legally' with the others in his tribe. We then have a world of societies, each sovereign - presumably social contract theory works out in this world too. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 19 '12 at 17:12
  • As sovereign and moral entities surely they then have the right to choose privacy (though circumstances may force them to choose otherwise). – Mozibur Ullah Dec 19 '12 at 17:15
  • @MoziburUllah I made an edit concerning the relation of societies. – iphigenie Dec 20 '12 at 10:58
  • 1
    Why the downvote? – iphigenie Dec 20 '12 at 11:10
1

Yes they should have a right to privacy. Why should they be forced to be integrated and consequently almost inevitably become dependent on society. Why would we want them to be integrated against their will? Unaccustomed to modern civilization and the skills valued for employment in our society, these people will probably just become dependent on welfare payments, and be later accused of leeching from society. If they want to be left alone, it is in everyone's best interest to respect that.

Kenshin
  • 1,502
  • 1
  • 14
  • 27
  • 1
    Thank you. FWIW, though there are examples of _contacted_ tribes who have not done well upon integration, the converse also exist. Setting that aside, take for example a completely isolated island in the middle of a vast ocean where an uncontacted tribe resides. Should an offer of contact even be made to them? – coleopterist Dec 19 '12 at 13:40