Final answer:
Morally justifying the ban or punishment of native customs by conquerors entails a debate between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, balancing respect for cultural diversity with human rights protections. Non-native conquerors historically imposed their values often under the guise of civilization, undermining native practices, but some argue that intervention may be needed to prevent inhumane practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
The morality of banning or punishing native customs by non-native conquerors raises complex issues surrounding ethnocentrism, cultural relativism, and human rights. These concepts involve assessing whether all cultural practices are equally valid or if there are universal standards to which all societies should adhere. Ethnocentrism refers to judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture, which can lead to the belief that one's own culture is superior. On the other hand, cultural relativism suggests that a person's beliefs and activities should be understood based on that person's own culture.
Throughout history, there have been instances, such as during colonialism, where the imposition of values and the disruption of native customs resulted from a perceived 'civilizing mission,' often overlooking the intrinsic value of indigenous practices and their cultural significance. Conceptions of moral goodness and expediency can differ widely, and when this imposition occurs, it often reflects the values of the dominant society, not the indigenous one. However, some customs may clash with universal notions of human rights, leading to debates on whether it is justified to intervene in or ban customs that are harmful or inhumane as judged by broader ethical standards.
The argument of cultural relativism versus universal standards remains contested. Advocates for human rights might argue that certain customs, such as slavery or mutilation, are inherently wrong, whereas cultural relativists might contend that such judgments are an inappropriate imposition of external values. Ultimately, the challenge lies in balancing respect for cultural diversity with the imperative to protect individuals from harm, recognizing humanity's shared rights and dignities.