What Happens If A Community Is Wrong?

Overall I understand the discussions of values in the Cartesian sense and the Linguistic Communities approach given be Sellars.  The Cartesian philosophy is enticing, however as we discussed in class, several issues arise; mainly it does not account for the phenomenon where objects seem to have value even if there is no external valuer, nor does it give much hope for the non-sentient beings who still possess value.  Furthermore, the discussions revolving around intrinsic vs. extrinsic value, and subjective vs. objective value become ambiguous and abstract for it is difficult to determine the sources of the value.  As offered by Thompson, Sellar's Linguistic Communities theory states that values emerge from a series of accepted assumptions that, whether consciously or unconsciously, govern a given community.  It also follows from this that we must be respective of other communities for they possess different assumptions and traits: and in order for mutual collaboration we must be open to Others. 

Although I agree that we must be open and respectful, I am concerned with a potentially unsettling ethical dilemma.  How must we regulate this openness to Others, especially if the Others are taking part in activities that are seen as immoral or unethical?  Even though it is tradition, many view female genital mutilation as wrong and immoral.  In this case we say hell with tradition and intervene to stop this practice. But as a result we are not being "open" to this culture.  So what are we to do if we want to respect these communities?  I understand that if we unpack this question discussions will arise about the definition of immoral and unethical.  Further, conversations of rights may muddle the concerns here...for example, what gives us the right to interfere with say other traditions or the like?  So.  All philosophical debate aside, there are real concerns that we must face.

The book "The Spirit Catches You And You Fall Down" by Anne Fadiman is a good example of this concern.  The book follows Lia, a Hmong child diagnosed with severe epilepsy, and her family's cultural struggle that ultimately halts her treatments.  Lia's parents hold strong to there traditional Hmong roots, especially when it comes to healing systems.  They are unsure of the Western biomedical model of treatment and continually refer to Shamanistic spiritual healing practices (while ignoring doctors orders) in an attempt to "fix" the continuing problems they believed are worsening because of the western medical system.  Through a series of language barriers, opposing views of medicine, ignoring medical treatments, and the struggle between two colliding cultures, Lia's condition worsens dramatically.  Lia slips into a coma at age 4, and is not expected to live.  Miraculously she survives but is left with severe brain damage and next to no motor skills.  Many doctors believe that these outcomes could have been avoided if her parents followed the treatments correctly, but the cultural and language barriers proved to be too high. 

In this scenario many ethical questions arise.  Should the doctors have been able to overrule the parent's choice to use traditional Hmong medical practices over western medicine?   If so, would Lia's parents be denied of some moral right to their tradition?  Or, since Lia is at an age where she cannot make life altering decisions on her own, are her parents to blame for her worsening condition?  Did the parents decision deprive Lia of her right to a potentially healthy life?  Is it immoral to continue with traditional practices even if they are not the best option? 

Even though this example is much more severe than the case of agriculture, I think that there are similar complications that may arise.  How are we to deal with differing values about ecosystems, land, and the species that inhabit them?  How are we to confront those who are not yet convinced that, say, animals and trees have moral rights?  Will we be stuck in a never ending, self-defeating debate about whose values are right and wrong?  Can these different communities truly function if there are others that are on the other end of the spectrum?  And what happens if we choose to rebel against these assumptions?  As seen in the art world, almost every movement is a progression and a rebellious response to the times.  What are we to do if values come from assumptions, but these assumptions can be rebelled against, leading to a new set of accepted assumptions? 

So I suppose the question we are left with is: Can we truly be open and respectful to other communities with different values?