Immoral Act?

Indians believe that every time you eat beef you not only killed a possible ancestor but are now cannibalizing that person as well. I'd say that's quite a bit worse than helping a woman reach nirvana. Now, before you go and tell me about how your belief system is so much better how about you spend a little time thinking about some of the things you believe in?

.. because of one particular law system you have in the states that I do not agree with. Capital punishment. I don't think anyone has the right to take another's life. But societies are all different. Cultures are different. Live and let live I say. Regarding capital punishment too!

The best short account of the "moral dilemma" that I've found was written by (surprise) Ambrose Bierce in (surprise surprise) the original Devil's Dictionary:

IMMORAL, adj. Inexpedient. Whatever in the long run and with regard to the greater number of instances men find to be generally inexpedient comes to be considered wrong, wicked, immoral. If man's notions of right and wrong have any other basis than this of expediency; if they originated, or could have originated, in any other way; if actions have in themselves a moral character apart from, and nowise dependent on, their consequences – then all philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.

In other words, customs have contexts. The widow's lot in antiquity - just about anywhere in the world - wasn't happy. Read your Bible ... Women were property, and men, the only wealth generators and generally strapped for cash, demanded fresh produce. The widow was thought to be contaminated by her previous owner's seed, germs and filthy habits, and unworthy of purchase. Even by her birth family, which sold her in the first place. Death by burning can be seen as preferable to death by starvation, as in ancient Israel (which is why "protection of widows and orphans" is one of the principal ethical refrains of the Old Testament, see especially the Book of Ruth). Only Wealth (most recently generated by the Industrial Revolution and its successors) and Knowledge (of human behavior, reproduction, and disease, funded by the Wealth from said Industrial Revolution) provide society with the resources to dissolve the bonds of property and give widows, and other humans suffering misfortunes, a chance of living. Those who would replace a custom with one of their own need to be certain that they understand the contexts of both, and willing to provide the resources to fund the changeover and convince those being changed that they are better off. See Iraq.

Customs often outlive their contexts. Sati (Indian widow-burning) is one of those, and is recognized as such - the practice is illegal in India. So your soldier would be right in trying to intervene, because the society sanctions intervention. The soldier might be dead right, because those who practice outmoded customs and beliefs often unite unto violence in defense of their practices, because they are "the Rules", and any intrusion is (perceived as) a deadly threat to their identity. If this sounds familiar (e.g. anti-abortion and "intelligent design" crusades), congratulations, there's hope for you.

I don't know. In the scenario described it's not my place to do anything. That's the law of that country. The people that live there know the laws and choose to live there regardless.

So live and let live - or rather live and let kill.

Kinda sucks but that's the way it is. If the woman didn't like it she shouldn't have stayed in the country where she was or she shouldn't have married. Right? Knowing that that was a possibility..

Bobbie

Burning of a widow in the pyre of her husband in India existed when people were burned at stakes in Europe and US as punishment for witchcraft, blasphemy etc.

When people were still being purchased and sold (slavery), women raped and killed by their owners in the US and Abraham lincoln was struggling to get the states to pass a legislation banning slavery, India already had a law banning burning of the widows.

Its sheer sensationalism to dig something out of history and feed it to ignorant readers. Like the Irish Ma going "wow, I didn't know that it's the law of the land".

Its not the law of the land as much as slavery is legal in the US.