Honor killing in Pakistan

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who says?

The majority of evolved human brains. In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values. Some people have defective moral sections of their brains just as some people have no joy and we diagnose that as a mental illness. In fact, people with specific kinds of brain damage demonstrate what happens when the moral part of one's brain is damaged.

Your position of moral cultural relativism lacks a whole body of brain neurology knowledge.

Yes, people often override the moral inhibition to kill. First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do. So the fact a culture defines looking at a boy as an offense punishable by death really is subject to scrutiny of the world body. We don't have differently evolved brains than these people.

But go on, keep posting your opinion, it isn't convincing. It's naive.

 

[I Ratant]

..

Because it's not his fault! The daughter was probably leading him on, but that's by the by...

.
Yeah, that easily accessible vagina was more incitement that the kid could handle...
As with all rapists. Own a vagina? Get raped.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is exactly the point I struggle with. As a materialist I most assuredly don't believe that there is an objective morality. But at the same time, I see it in my best interests that there BE some sort of morality, and I'd like it if it were objective. ....

You might find a Google search for "the evolution of morality" will return some useful reading.

While an absolute measurement of things like beauty, love, and morality may not be as easy to pin down as pi, there is a neurobiological basis for these judgements. There is an objective component. Think of it more like a range than an absolute value, but still very much part of the material world.

 

[I Ratant]

...
Sadly I doubt honour killings will end completely. ...

.
It may take a generation or two, as the old "this is the way it must" guys die off, and more educated... especially educated people become the norm.

 

[Kaylee]

I understand it is immoral to us and not to them. In any case there are very rigid social structures elsewhere in the world, including in the Middle East, where honour killings are not accepted.

We upset our own apple cart to the benefit of the whole of society by abolishing slavery. We recognised ourselves that it was wrong and did something about it. I do not see why we should wait around for those cultures who honour kill to do the same. It is called learning from your mistakes.

It's interesting that slavery has come up in this thread a few times. Nessie you're in Great Britain, right?

Per this BBC link, Great Britain took it upon herself to not only make slavery illegal in Great Britain, but to also ban trading in slavery on the Atlantic Ocean for everyone.

While the 1807 act made trading in slaves illegal, there had been little consideration about how best to enforce the legislation.

<snip>

Ultimately, it took nearly 60 years of untiring diplomacy and naval patrolling to finally abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

<snip>

With peace in Europe from 1815, and British supremacy at sea secured, the Navy turned its attention back to the challenge and established the West Coast of Africa Station, known as the 'preventative squadron', which for the next 50 years operated against the slavers.

<snip>

The pursuit and capture of slave ships became celebrated naval engagements, widely reported back in peace-time Britain with its expanding print culture, and was often memorialised in souvenir engravings.

The night-time fire-fight of 6 June 1829 between the schooner 'Pickle' and the slaver 'Voladora' was well-known, as were the exploits of the schooner 'Monkey' against Spanish slave brigs off the Bahamas later that month.

HMS 'Buzzard' successfully chased and engaged the slaver 'Formidable' in 1834, the 'Electra' brought down a Carolina slaver with its human cargo in 1838, and 'Acorn' captured the rogue 'Gabriel' in the summer of 1841, to name just a few of the many sensationalised actions.

An expectant public could follow vivid accounts in the newspapers, while many of these 'battles' were also reported at home in watercolours and oil paintings, which helped sustain the positive reputation of the Navy, while also maintaining public interest in Britain's suppression activities.

Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against 'the usurping King of Lagos', deposed in 1851.

Lines between the politics of slavery suppression and British expansionist ambitions become blurred. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers, but British motives were not entirely altruistic.

An interesting example of how Great Britain decided to impose her standards of morality on other countries. I doubt that most people posting in this thread have a problem with that, given what the particular issue was despite the fact that slavery was condoned in many cultures and by many religions.

Given that slavery still exists illegally, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery would have been more widely practiced legally even to this day if abolitionists had not decided to try to impose their idea of what was just on others.

 

[Nessie]

The majority of evolved human brains. In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values. Some people have defective moral sections of their brains just as some people have no joy and we diagnose that as a mental illness. In fact, people with specific kinds of brain damage demonstrate what happens when the moral part of one's brain is damaged.

Your position of moral cultural relativism lacks a whole body of brain neurology knowledge.

Yes, people often override the moral inhibition to kill. First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do. So the fact a culture defines looking at a boy as an offense punishable by death really is subject to scrutiny of the world body. We don't have differently evolved brains than these people.

But go on, keep posting your opinion, it isn't convincing. It's naive.

That is a very good point. It is as if at some point in that past their brains were trained to over come somethings that the vast majority of people accept as normal, in this case killing the victim and/or killing for minor indiscretions.

 

[Nessie]

It's interesting that slavery has come up in this thread a few times. Nessie you're in Great Britain, right?

Per this BBC link, Great Britain took it upon herself to not only make slavery illegal in Great Britain, but to also ban trading in slavery on the Atlantic Ocean for everyone.




An interesting example of how Great Britain decided to impose her standards of morality on other countries. I doubt that most people posting in this thread have a problem with that, given what the particular issue was despite the fact that slavery was condoned in many cultures and by many religions.

Given that slavery still exists illegally, I wouldn't be surprised if slavery would have been more widely practiced legally even to this day if abolitionists had not decided to try to impose their idea of what was just on others.

We have been great ones for imposing our ways on others, banning Sati and playing cricket being other notable ones. Of course the way it was done back then by direct rule and power would not work today.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

The majority of evolved human brains.

Oh I see - it's our majority that gives us the right to police cultures who practice things we don't like, especially those with brains less evolved than ours, like Pakistanis and Middle Eastern types? Wow...

In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values.

I hadn't noticed that. Do you have a link?

Yes, people often override the moral inhibition to kill. First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do.

OK... I was gonna ask for a link for that too, but given that's just your unsubstantiated opinion I won't bother. Thanks for confirming you're just blowing hot air out of where you sit.

But go on, keep posting your opinion, it isn't convincing. It's naive.

LOL! Yeah... Keep going.

 

[Kaylee]

We have been great ones for imposing our ways on others, banning Sati and playing cricket being other notable ones.

Hmmm, feel strongly about cricket I see.

Of course the way it was done back then by direct rule and power would not work today.

True. The international reaction to the black civil rights movement in America during the 1960s, and international boycotts (including consumer, sports, investment, etc) against South Africa because of its system of apartheid plus support of the civil resistance movement in South Africa before the 1990s are examples of ways that would still work today.

 

[Nessie]

.....


OK... I was gonna ask for a link for that too, but given that's just your unsubstantiated opinion I won't bother. Thanks for confirming you're just blowing hot air out of where you sit.



.....

A quick search and here is an academic study of how moral indignation about killing can be suspended

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty.../human_rights_quarterly/v034/34.4.bellamy.pdf

That is about mass civilian deaths during wars.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

A quick search and here is an academic study of how moral indignation about killing can be suspended

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty.../human_rights_quarterly/v034/34.4.bellamy.pdf

That is about mass civilian deaths during wars.

Oh god. I don't think that article says what you think it says, and you do not know what I'm actually disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger
First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do.

THAT load of tripe is what I am disagreeing with. It's been a while since I've read any opinion as ill-informed as that.

 

[Nessie]

The article is about how killing of civilians is still accepted and those who do it still go unpunished in modern wars. It shows the reason for that is the need to win the war outweighs the need not to kill civilians and killing civilians can be excused as unfortunate and a mistake and we have called it collateral damage. So our culture can still suspend the moral code of not killing civilians during wars.

The Afghan culture has found it self in a position where it has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK, despite knowing killing is wrong overall and has come up with an excuse to do so called honour.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

The article is about how killing of civilians is still accepted

Ugh... No it's not. Have you even READ the abstract? I doubt you've read the whole article - you need an academic log in for that.

This is the first line of the abstract:

The norm of civilian immunity, which holds that civilians must not be intentionally targeted in war or subjected to mass killing, is widely supported and considered a jus cogens principle of international law.

The first FIVE WORDS of the abstract ALONE completely contradicts your interpretation of the article being about 'How the killing of civilians is still accepted'.

T
The Afghan culture has found it self in a position where it has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK, despite knowing killing is wrong overall and has come up with an excuse to do so called honour.

Wait.. What?! They just suddenly decided recently that they want to kill their daughters, and then retrospectively thought they could justify it by making up an excuse of doing it for honour?!

Oh god. I... Oh god.

 

[Nessie]

Quoted out of context, strawman and then argument by incredulity. Way to go in making whatever your point is.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Quoted out of context, strawman and then argument by incredulity. Way to go in making whatever your point is.

I can't work out whether you have reading comprehension problems; you're insane; or trolling.

What did I quote out of context? What strawman, and where did I make an argument from incredulity?

 

[Nessie]

Out of context.

You quoted "The norm of civilian immunity, which holds that civilians must not be intentionally targeted in war or subjected to mass killing, is widely supported and considered a jus cogens principle of international law" which does contradict what I have said. But then what I have said becomes clear by including the next sentence "Yet not only does mass killing remain a recurrent feature of world politics, but perpetrators sometimes avoid criticism or punishment" So I have shown an instance of how whilst killing is not accepted, given some circumstances and it becomes accepted.

Strawman

"Wait.. What?! They just suddenly decided recently that they want to kill their daughters, and then retrospectively thought they could justify it by making up an excuse of doing it for honour?!". I did not say it was a recent development and if you go back to the links I first posted about honour killings and how they have developed you would see how they bare no relation to what you have said about retrospective justification. Anthropological studies suggest they developed for reasons of male dominance in the society,

"A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power."

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

"... the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey, has so far shown that little if any social stigma is attached to honor killing. It also comments that the practice is not related to a feudal societal structure, "there are also perpetrators who are well-educated university graduates. Of all those surveyed, 60 percent are either high school or university graduates or at the very least, literate."

see posts #37 and #42.

Argument by incredulity

"Oh god. I... Oh god"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't work out whether you have reading comprehension problems; you're insane; or trolling....

You left out the possibility you aren't being as clear as you believe you are.


So back to the neurobiology of morality, what specifically is it you need a citation to read about?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Out of context.

You quoted "The norm of civilian immunity, which holds that civilians must not be intentionally targeted in war or subjected to mass killing, is widely supported and considered a jus cogens principle of international law" which does contradict what I have said.

Yes it does.

But then what I have said becomes clear by including the next sentence "Yet not only does mass killing remain a recurrent feature of world politics, but perpetrators sometimes avoid criticism or punishment" So I have shown an instance of how whilst killing is not accepted, given some circumstances and it becomes accepted.

Except that what you said next was:

and those who do it still go unpunished in modern wars

Which is not the same as

but perpetrators sometimes avoid criticism or punishment

Bolding mine; do I have to explain why?

Anyway; there's no point arguing over an article you clearly haven't read and are not likely to be able to.

Strawman

Perhaps - but it was certainly not intentional...

"Wait.. What?! They just suddenly decided recently that they want to kill their daughters, and then retrospectively thought they could justify it by making up an excuse of doing it for honour?!".

I did not say it was a recent development and if you go back to the links I first posted about honour killings and how they have developed you would see how they bare no relation to what you have said about retrospective justification. Anthropological studies suggest they developed for reasons of male dominance in the society,

Let's look at what you did say:

Originally Posted by Nessie

The Afghan culture has found it self in a position where it has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK, despite knowing killing is wrong overall and has come up with an excuse to do so called honour.

'Has found itself' - not 'had', but 'has' - suggesting recent developments.

'Has permanently decided that killing of daughters is OK..' - 'has' again, suggesting recent developments. Also using the word 'decided', implies this was not something that began thousands of years ago and evolved, but a firm decision.

'Has come up with an excuse' - 'has' again, not 'had' - this whole sentence suggests that thousands of males across the Middle East consulted each other and came up with a unified decision along the lines of "Right - we like killing our daughters, but we're gonna need some sort of excuse if we want to keep doing it. Does everyone agree on 'Family Honour?'"

Now you may not think that's what you said, but can you see how it LOOKS like that's what you were saying? That's why I replied to you in the form of a question, because it LOOKED like that was what you were saying, and I was asking for confirmation.

So no Strawman.

Now let's have a look at your quotes:

"A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power."

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

"... the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey, has so far shown that little if any social stigma is attached to honor killing. It also comments that the practice is not related to a feudal societal structure, "there are also perpetrators who are well-educated university graduates. Of all those surveyed, 60 percent are either high school or university graduates or at the very least, literate."

see posts #37 and #42.

For reasons of male dominance? Quite possibly, but as you were cherry-picking through Wikipedia, you missed one:

As noted by Christian Arab writer, Norma Khouri, honor killings originate from the belief that a woman’s chastity is the property of her families, a cultural norm that comes "from our ancient tribal days, from the Hammurabi and Assyrian tribes of 1200 B.C."

Argument by incredulity

"Oh god. I... Oh god"

There's no argument there. Show me where you think there is one. Or I could save you time and just tell you that it is simply just the sounds of despair.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

So back to the neurobiology of morality, what specifically is it you need a citation to read about?

That it has actually been confirmed, for starters. ETA: From Birth.

However, I am very interested in where you pulled this gem from:

First you have to define the person you want to kill as 'other than human'. That's what soldiers do.

I'd be very interested to see your source for that. Let's not let that little beauty go adrift...

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

.
Yeah, that easily accessible vagina was more incitement that the kid could handle...
As with all rapists. Own a vagina? Get raped.

Maybe if you read back a bit in the conversation between Nessie and I, you might detect a tone of sarcasm in the whole paragraph that you quoted from...