Were I to be asked for an opinion on this matter, I feel I would have no authority in my response. It is really the community's choice, and I would be afraid to make a decision which affects people completely strange to me. I doubt they would ask me in the first place, but were I to be asked my opinion I would say that the man should be buried in the special burial ground. My decision has nothing to do with my own beliefs about death and life and the sacredness of the body. Instead it is based on a variety of moral principles which attempt to conceptualize man's intuitive morality. The question is a difficult one, but by considering the bed of moral relativism on which it lies, and by thinking about it in the separate moral mentalities of egoism, utilitarianism, and Kantianism, one can come up with an adequate answer which will be the most favorable to all.

The question of moral relativism is central to this scenario. Whose beliefs are right? Why should the man believe what his culture does? How could an outsider possibly give proper counsel? By considering the idea of the man's beliefs, it may come to mind that the culture should respect them. How can the community possibly say that the man is wrong? The man is basing his decision on his own moral code which the community cannot confuse with its own. Therefore, the community has no jurisdiction, and cannot force its own beliefs on the individual. This might be a westernized perspective, perhaps skewed by a concept of individuality that is not universal, but the idea of moral relativism still stands to say that the man cannot be judged wrong. So then should the culture cremate him? No. By cremating him the culture must then assimilate the man's beliefs. When looked at in the converse, is it not obvious that the man should be buried in the special burial ground? How can anyone judge the culture's beliefs wrong? It cannot be expected that the community take the risk of catastrophe which they believe will result from cremating the man. There is no reason for them to conform to the man's individual culture.

Cremating the man would be equivalent (in the context of moral relativism) to letting a criminal go free because he believed that murder was the right thing to do. If a community allowed everyone to follow their own individual cultures this would surely be the result, and most can agree that this would not be a way to live. There would be no responsibility, and people could only be blamed for ignoring their own morality, which can never be verified. If the culture is thought of as preserving its own moral standard, however, it can be justified in punishing criminals, and likewise it can be justified in applying its own burial procedures to the man. There is no reason for the culture to bow for an individual unless there is a specific value in the culture that the individual outweighs the whole, in which case the question of burial would be moot. The man would have been cremated immediately. But lacking this incentive, it is the right of the community to do as it chooses, and to preserve its culture if necessary. The elders of the community have the authority to judge this, and likewise they would judge this without thinking of moral relativism, by merely having an egoist mentality.

An egoist mentality for the elders would mean they would care for themselves. Their decision would reflect not the needs of the community, but their own wants and desires, particularly a desire to stay in power. The man requesting a different form of burial would be seen as a dissident, strong in himself but dangerous to the authority of the elders. Were the elders to give in and cremate the man, it would seriously undermine their authority. Others might individually start requesting action of the elders, and the elders would not be able to rightfully deny it. A decision to cremate the man would create shockwaves through the religious community, and make for a populace more difficult to control. Therefore, from the viewpoint of egoism, there is little or nothing that would point to cremating the man. From the viewpoint of egoism, the wise and prudent thing to do would be to cremate the man. It would cause less instability to the community and would allow the elders to keep their current level of control over the citizens. The man's wishes would be sacrificed, and the community would be at peace.

The irony of the egoist perspective on this matter is that its decision, made selfishly by the elders, would actually be moral according to an entirely different moral principle. From the viewpoint of utilitarianism, a consequential philosophy which defines moral actions as those which result in the greatest amount of total happiness, the man should be buried for the good of his community. Assuming that the community's religious belief and their fear of resulting disaster is stronger than the culture's regard for individual rights and the wishes of the dead, burying the man would make for a lot more happy people than unhappy ones. It would result in a much greater happiness than cremating him by far. Were the man cremated, there would be many people living in fear of the impeding catastrophe. On the other hand, by burying him, the community would lose nothing, and only the dead man's wishes would be violated. From a utilitarian perspective this would be no loss at all because the man is already dead, and theoretically has no more feelings on the matter. So barring a majority of the community sympathizing with the man, burying him would be the moral choice. Utilitarianism has very little to say in favor of cremating the man.

But is utilitarianism the correct moral principle here? Does utilitarianism not always sacrifice the needs of the individual for the good of the many? Would it not sanction the harvesting of organs from one man to help people far away? This does not seem like the moral thing to do, and yet utilitarianism suggests it. What of other moral principles, perhaps one which takes into account more of our moral intuition? What about Kantianism?

The Kantian viewpoint argues that there is a "categorical imperative" (CI) by which all morality is judged. Though not defining this CI directly, Kant (hence Kantianism) gives two forms derived from it. The first argues that one should not act in a way which one would not want others to act in at the same time. Further explanation can not be given here. The second for says that one should care not to treat others merely as means, but also as ends in themselves. Basically it argues against using people for selfish ends. What does Kantianism have to say about the burial procedure for the man?
The first form of the CI might argue that one would not want everyone to ignore one's wishes after death, and so the wishes of the man would have to be met. The second form would argue that by burying the man, the community is using him as a means for its own happiness. So here the answer seems to be that the man should be buried. But the issue is deeper than that. The man is dead, so does all this apply? The second form has been interpreted as an urging to always respect human life. It covers exploitation, suicide, and many other immoral things, but what about the wishes of the dead man? Does he still count as human life? The intuition seems to say no, and yet there seems to be wrong about ignoring a man's dying wish. The first form still stands. It would be immoral to ignore the man's wishes, but when applied to the community in general, the first form also says that it would be immoral to ignore the needs of the community. If everyone were to ignore the needs of the community, the community would crumble, so it should then be immoral to ignore the needs of the community in this case. This dilemma is a difficult one to resolve, and this is what lends the "most moral" aspect to this decision.

However, I believe that in this case the morality of burying the man outweighs a decision to cremate him. Apart from my own individualist upbringing this is the right thing to do. The culture will have the decision to make, but this is my advice. I would not be able to push my beliefs about individual rights on others. I do not know the specifics of the culture; this is why the community itself must have the final choice. The decision here will set a precedent for others, and the wrong one could crumble the community. I say bury the man in his special holy ground. It would be the best for all.