Withholding knowledge and refusing to share it is morally worse than forced conversion.
Evidence
The Hindus criticise the Mahomedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the score of the Inquisition. But really speaking, who is better and more worthy of our respect—the Mahomedans and Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for their salvation, or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of their own make-up? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mahomedan has been cruel, the Hindu has been mean; and meanness is worse than cruelty. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 889
Categorization
Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims
- DEEPTHINKING: The inversion — refusal to share the light is worse than forcing it down unwilling throats — reframes coercion-vs-omission moral calculus in a way worth sitting with.
Related
- Refusing to share one’s faith is morally worse than forcibly imposing it. (similarity 0.92)
- Hindu refusal to spread its faith is meaner than missionary coercion. (similarity 0.88)