Honor killing in Pakistan

[TimCallahan]

Which amounts to forcing other cultures to conform to our values and standards.

When it comes to honor killing, I have not the slightest qualm about this.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

When it comes to honor killing, I have not the slightest qualm about this.

And BELIEVE me, I really do agree, but for me it HAS to be 'an assist' on our part to change already taking place from within. It should never simply be a case of 'That doesn't measure up to our values and standards - which are MUCH better than yours, incidentally - and we don't like it, so stop it OR ELSE!"

ETA: I'm loathe to commit a 'Slippery Slope' fallacy, but where would that end, particularly in terms of 'West' Vs 'Middle East'?

 

[Nessie]

SMVC, what point are you trying to make?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

SMVC, what point are you trying to make?

Given that you have trouble understanding me, or just don't WANT to understand my position, I'll quote the eloquent joesixpack:

No one is advocating that the horrible practice be allowed to continue unchecked. What is being argued is that culture can be changed from within, and trying to change if from without is generally counterproductive.

He is pretty much speaking on my behalf there. I would maybe change 'can' to 'should'.

Additionally, I believe forcing change externally is not only counterproductive, but wrong. That's my opinion.

 

[Nessie]

Right so we are in agreement then. Do you think it is right to back campaigns supporting Pakistani and Afghan women who want to stop honour killings?

 

[TimCallahan]

And BELIEVE me, I really do agree, but for me it HAS to be 'an assist' on our part to change already taking place from within. It should never simply be a case of 'That doesn't measure up to our values and standards - which are MUCH better than yours, incidentally - and we don't like it, so stop it OR ELSE!"

ETA: I'm loathe to commit a 'Slippery Slope' fallacy, but where would that end, particularly in terms of 'West' Vs 'Middle East'?

Yes, I agree. If we were to impose it from without, then indulging in honor killing would become a patriotic act done in defiance of an overbearing foreign power.

On the other hand, were I an American soldier in Afghanistan, I wouldn't hesitate to intervene in an honor killing; though, in such a case, I would probably have to spirit the woman away, eventually to the U.S.

 

[westprog]

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 tend to think that people in Afghanistan have similar neuro-biology to those in Europe and the USA.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Right so we are in agreement then. Do you think it is right to back campaigns supporting Pakistani and Afghan women who want to stop honour killings?

As I've said a few times before, it is right to back these campaigns - providing requested assistance- but not to drive them.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I tend to think that people in Afghanistan have similar neuro-biology to those in Europe and the USA.

No, apparently their brains are not as evolved...

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Yes, I agree. If we were to impose it from without, then indulging in honor killing would become a patriotic act done in defiance of an overbearing foreign power.

I could easily see that happening.

On the other hand, were I an American soldier in Afghanistan, I wouldn't hesitate to intervene in an honor killing; though, in such a case, I would probably have to spirit the woman away, eventually to the U.S.

That would cause a whole new and exciting world of problems for everyone involved, but again I can sympathise with your sentiments.

 

[Nessie]

As I've said a few times before, it is right to back these campaigns - providing requested assistance- but not to drive them.

I am not so sure about that as if left to their own devices there would never have been a campaign in the first place. I am quite sure the only reason why there are such campaigns now is because the West started them and women saw that there was another way and that by educating them and others they have been empowered to run such campaigns. Then, without the security we can provide, such as helping to protect Pakistani girls education and providing direct action where needed. Such as

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ala-yousafzai-thanks-wellwishers-8299975.html

I don't know whether that is driving or backing, but so long as we use all reasonable influences, I have no issue with that.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I am not so sure about that as if left to their own devices there would never have been a campaign in the first place. I am quite sure the only reason why there are such campaigns now is because the West started them and women saw that there was another way <SNIP>

I genuinely have no idea about that, and couldn't comment on whether change has come from within or was driven externally without further investigation. In this day and age with the internet and access to media, I'd not be surprised to learn that the 'West' has had a passive indirect influence on Middle Eastern countries as change - or the realisation that change can happen - filters out from the big cities. It is liable to take a LONG time out in the hardcore rural and remote areas though, and pushing change through there would be exactly the WRONG way of bringing it about, I think.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ala-yousafzai-thanks-wellwishers-8299975.html

I don't know whether that is driving or backing, but so long as we use all reasonable influences, I have no issue with that.

Ah... the Taliban. There's a perfect example of what happens when an external force pushes change through.

 

[Kaylee]

I am not so sure about that as if left to their own devices there would never have been a campaign in the first place. I am quite sure the only reason why there are such campaigns now is because the West started them and women saw that there was another way and that by educating them and others they have been empowered to run such campaigns. Then, without the security we can provide, such as helping to protect Pakistani girls education and providing direct action where needed. Such as

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ala-yousafzai-thanks-wellwishers-8299975.html

I don't know whether that is driving or backing, but so long as we use all reasonable influences, I have no issue with that.

Agreed. And as I posted upthread, we have at least two historical examples of where an externally driven campaign to change what was considered morally acceptable behavior worked. Banning:

* Slavery

* and in the more recent past, with lighter tools such as boycotting vs. a heavy handed use of military powers, apartheid in South Africa

 

[Kaylee]

Dup

 

[westprog]

No, you're not answering my question. Listing a series of historical events doesn't answer the question; who or what gives us the mandate to police elements of foreign cultures that don't meet our standards?

We have exactly the same mandate that the people of those regions do to carry out their illegal actions. It's part of our culture to want to prevent these things from happening.

There's a utilitarian view by which any interference is likely to be counter-productive. That sorta makes sense. However, saying that we have no right to do it doesn't. We have just as much right to stop them doing it as they have to do it.

There's an argument that since we actually are in Afghanistan, we might as well enforce more enlightened mores. I'm not sure whether that's a good idea, but I don't seen any reason to hold back from doing it except for it being counter-productive.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Agreed. And as I posted upthread, we have at least two historical examples of where an externally driven campaign to change what was considered morally acceptable behavior worked. Banning:

* Slavery

Indeed, but there was also appetite for abolishing slavery within, and as has also been pointed out, the plight of freed slaves was barely improved at all once they had their freedom. Not one I would chalk up as a victory, personally.

* and in the more recent past, with lighter tools such as boycotting vs. a heavy handed use of military powers, apartheid in South Africa

Again, that was a fire that was already burning within. Nelson Mandela was already doing serious jail time for protesting apartheid before we in the West really caught on.

However, that is one area that I would have had no problems with the application of some serious (non-military) force, given that white South Africans are all descendants of western cultures, and generally hold to the same values and standards as the rest of us. I would not have considered the 'West' an external player in this, and would have considered it 'reining in our unruly children'. It's not like the White SAs could even claim apartheid as 'cultural heritage' any more - certainly not by the late 70's, early 80s.

 

[westprog]

I genuinely have no idea about that, and couldn't comment on whether change has come from within or was driven externally without further investigation. In this day and age with the internet and access to media, I'd not be surprised to learn that the 'West' has had a passive indirect influence on Middle Eastern countries as change - or the realisation that change can happen - filters out from the big cities. It is liable to take a LONG time out in the hardcore rural and remote areas though, and pushing change through there would be exactly the WRONG way of bringing it about, I think.



Ah... the Taliban. There's a perfect example of what happens when an external force pushes change through.

Afghanistan has had a long, long history of foreign influence. The Russians used the most brutal methods to impose liberal values. The Arab mujahideen that supported the Taliban were imposing their own values. All the different tribes have different cultures in their own way, and there's a huge urban/rural divide. In fact, there's far more cultural imperialism at the moment from the people supporting honour killing, or bombing girls' schools, than those opposing it.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

We have exactly the same mandate that the people of those regions do to carry out their illegal actions. It's part of our culture to want to prevent these things from happening.

Don't get that. Because part of our culture is wanting to interfere with other cultures, we should be allowed to interfere in other cultures? Is that right?

There's a utilitarian view by which any interference is likely to be counter-productive. That sorta makes sense. However, saying that we have no right to do it doesn't. We have just as much right to stop them doing it as they have to do it.

And where does our 'right' come from?

Where do you stand on their cultural right to wage jihad on infidels, and killing as many infidels as you can will guarantee you a good spot in heaven?

There's an argument that since we actually are in Afghanistan, we might as well enforce more enlightened mores. I'm not sure whether that's a good idea, but I don't seen any reason to hold back from doing it except for it being counter-productive.

That is precisely the reason for not doing it. Who is making the argument that we enforce more enlightened mores, by the way? I ask, because soldiers deploying to Afghanistan are absolutely forbidden from imposing their ways and values on the locals, and are encouraged to observe local customs and traditions wherever possible and practicable.

 

[westprog]

Indeed, but there was also appetite for abolishing slavery within, and as has also been pointed out, the plight of freed slaves was barely improved at all once they had their freedom. Not one I would chalk up as a victory, personally.

I don't think that's remotely true. Jim Crow and lynching and brutal suppression don't negate the huge difference between slavery and freedom, no matter how circumscribed. There was very little impetus from freed slaves to return to their previous circumstances.

Again, that was a fire that was already burning within. Nelson Mandela was already doing serious jail time for protesting apartheid before we in the West really caught on.

However, that is one area that I would have had no problems with the application of some serious (non-military) force, given that white South Africans are all descendants of western cultures, and generally hold to the same values and standards as the rest of us. I would not have considered the 'West' an external player in this, and would have considered it 'reining in our unruly children'. It's not like the White SAs could even claim apartheid as 'cultural heritage' any more - certainly not by the late 70's, early 80s.

How old does something have to be to qualify as culture? The white SA's were in South Africa for as long as many of the black SA's whom they were oppressing. They had had their view of non-white people's for almost as long as they had contact with them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I tend to think that people in Afghanistan have similar neuro-biology to those in Europe and the USA.

Of course they do. And societies become culturally cruel from time to time. But it doesn't last and they drift back to normal.

The point is, when societies are off on the cruel side of the continuum, there is truth when other humans take note and speak up. To claim, "It's their culture and you can't judge them by your culture", is not true. There is a human norm one can judge other cultures by.