There were two American academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1990’s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the American explorers offered the Amazonians trifles and food and the Amazonians tentatively accepted. However, all of a sudden like a wild animal one of the Amazonians clubbed one of the explorers over the head with a club, smashing his skull, the other explorer tried to defend himself but was also clubbed to death and struck with poison arrows. The Amazonians then took the corpses of the two American explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The end. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the American or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the American explorers and charge, prosecute and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a jaguar to jail. Why then? Because the indigenous Amazonians are more primitive and the American explorers are much more advanced. Relatively it would be unethical to prosecute the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Americans. Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bare this in mind when judging and condemning our own murderers and those who have man-slaughtered in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativity.
There are actual recorded cases such as the killing of Englishman Richard Mason by indigenous Amazonians in 1961.
“Accompanied by a member of the Brazilian Indian Protection Service, Hemming left gifts such as machetes and fishing line at the spot where Mason had been killed to show they bore no ill will to his killers.“