Honor killing in Pakistan

[westprog]

There are two things here that, while linked, are still separate. One is the body of atrocities carried out by the Taliban. This is something we should combat, even after we leave Afghanistan. For example, an international force of volunteers who have a zeal to combat slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution could and should remain active.

There's an international force of volunteers there now*. Unfortunately they support the Taliban.


*Or was. I can't say how many of them are left.

 

[westprog]

It's not a strawman, rather your lack of understanding how the brain experiences moral feelings is the problem.

What do you think morals are? It's the emotional experience of certain rights and wrongs. Normal people know it is not right to murder. It's not fear of punishment that creates that emotion. Animals have a demonstrated sense of fairness that can lead them to act against their own best interest. This has been demonstrated in non-human primates. Very young children have no problem breaking a rule like, no eating in the classroom, if told the rule had changed but the same age children do no readily hit an animal when told the rule of no hitting no longer applies. That experiment was done.

How about you explain what you think moral thought is. Do you think we behave a certain way because we learned right and wrong on a blank slate? Think we behave morally because we fear punishment?



Seriously? That's your argument? Are you also under the misconception atheists would just go round on murderous rampages if there wasn't a law against murder?

Morals don't come from religion. A few behavior rules might, like the arbitrary taboo against pork or the claim that homosexual acts are sins. But people fit their religion to their moral beliefs, not the other way around.

We've been around this many times, and it remains obvious that human beings have both a disinclination to murder, and a tendency to murder, depending on circumstances. There's nothing unnatural about killing other human beings. It's central to human history.

If you have two groups of people competing for a resource when there's only enough for one of them, violence is a natural response. That doesn't imply it's a moral response.

 

[westprog]

And nobody seems to be able to justify why ‘The West’ has the right to police the world, other than “Because we can”, “Because we have the biggest stick”, “We have the 'best' morals”.

The West has the right to police the world in exactly the same way that people in other countries have the right to enjoy their culture uninterrupted. How can cultures have rights if people don't?

 

[TimCallahan]

There's an international force of volunteers there now*. Unfortunately they support the Taliban.


*Or was. I can't say how many of them are left.

Of course, this is not what I mean. If you have something constructive to offer, I'll gladly listen to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We've been around this many times, and it remains obvious that human beings have both a disinclination to murder, and a tendency to murder, depending on circumstances. There's nothing unnatural about killing other human beings. It's central to human history.

If you have two groups of people competing for a resource when there's only enough for one of them, violence is a natural response. That doesn't imply it's a moral response.

You're wrong. It's one thing to be able to kill under certain circumstances and to feel like killing anytime for the most minor infraction. That is a rare and abnormal person who can do that.

I've traveled extensively in third world countries, and time and time again, after being warned how dangerous a place was, I found normal people going about normal lives, not killing and maiming each other willy nilly. Now why is that?

Yes, things can deteriorate, people can be abnormal, circumstances can be abnormal, but the most common state of human affairs is civility toward each other.

 

[The Norseman]

You're wrong. It's one thing to be able to kill under certain circumstances and to feel like killing anytime for the most minor infraction. That is a rare and abnormal person who can do that.

I've traveled extensively in third world countries, and time and time again, after being warned how dangerous a place was, I found normal people going about normal lives, not killing and maiming each other willy nilly. Now why is that?

Yes, things can deteriorate, people can be abnormal, circumstances can be abnormal, but the most common state of human affairs is civility toward each other.

This might be a good time to mention that I recently obtained several studies which examine the lives of child soldiers in Africa. I have not read them yet, but I'm thinking they might bring some insight into this concept of morality and killing other humans.

 

[westprog]

Of course, this is not what I mean.

If you mean that a group of people who want to improve the lives of people in Afghanistan, they qualify.

If you have something constructive to offer, I'll gladly listen to it.

How about "actions often have unintended consequences"?

 

[westprog]

You're wrong. It's one thing to be able to kill under certain circumstances and to feel like killing anytime for the most minor infraction. That is a rare and abnormal person who can do that.

I've traveled extensively in third world countries, and time and time again, after being warned how dangerous a place was, I found normal people going about normal lives, not killing and maiming each other willy nilly. Now why is that?

Yes, things can deteriorate, people can be abnormal, circumstances can be abnormal, but the most common state of human affairs is civility toward each other.

Yes, people don't kill each other willy-nilly. They have reasons for it. For example, the destruction of the honour system which forms the basis of their society.

It's very easy for two people to be civil to each other when they aren't competing for something.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

The answer is freedom of choice. North Koreans lack choice, as do Muslim women though there is variation from country to country.

It's an answer, certainly - just not the answer to the question I asked you.

If the women who live in an honour killing culture had a genuinely free choice and chose to keep a tradition that involves them being blamed for being raped and then they are killed, so be it. I suspect though they would be likely to chose not to have such a tradition continue.

You'd think so wouldn't you? Did you notice one of the examples given in this thread was of a WOMAN carrying out a horrific Honour Killing?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

You're missing the point. Nothing succeeds like success. Only successful cultural constructs would result in the data that would lead you to conclude that one culture is better than another. It's not that North Korea would succeed, it's that North Korea can't succeed. For a cultural construct to be successful the data supporting the social science has to be there.

Do you understand the term 'hypothetical'?

Anyway... So how are we judging 'successful'? How would define the criteria for judging? What if an 8 year-old boy living in poverty who did not attend school, in some third world country claimed to be extremely happy, but an 8 year-old boy living in America with a middle-class family claimed to be unhappy?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
No, that would be silly. Please stop hitting the strawman you've just made and point out where I was talking about 'emotions'. What I was discussing with you - the claim which you have failed to provide one shred of evidence for - is that we are born moral; that morals are already 'baked-in' to our brains at birth.

While you're at it you may wish to provide evidence for your claim that soldiers are able to overcome the inhibition to kill by thinking of the enemy as 'other than human'.

It's not a strawman, rather your lack of understanding how the brain experiences moral feelings is the problem.

What do you think morals are? It's the emotional experience of certain rights and wrongs.

No. Morals are the differentiation between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ – two subjective terms. Some Islamic Cultures believe Honour Killing is morally ‘right’ – most Western Cultures believe it is morally ‘wrong’. Were those people in Islamic cultures born with the belief that Honour Killing is ‘right’?

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Yes. Why would Christians waste one of Ten Commandments on "Thou shalt not kill" if it was already built in?

Seriously? That's your argument? Are you also under the misconception atheists would just go round on murderous rampages if there wasn't a law against murder?

I was actually being semi-facetious but – sod it – let’s say it IS my argument; if – as you contend without a single shred of evidence or citation to back it up – an inhibition against killing other humans is baked-in – we’re born with it – then why have we had commandments and laws against it for thousands of years? Why does it have to be constantly drummed into us that murder is wrong?

Are you ever going to provide these citations you mentioned? Are you ever going to answer the questions I keep asking you?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I suspect that you have a bet with yourself as to how long you can keep this thread going. FWIW, I started doubting that you are debating sincerely shortly after the thread began,

Oh dear, I'm so embarrassed! And there was me thinking that I was simply doing what people do on internet forums, and replying to those people who respond to my posts! I actually thought 'debate' meant, answer questions that people pose me, respond to their points with an opposing viewpoint, or even agree with them! How wrong could I be?!

Attempt at poisoning the well noted.

but I also now believe that this thread has gone past the point where it can provide useful data or points of view to anyone who is lurking and sincerely looking for that kind of information.

Oh well, if that's what YOU believe, we'd better pack it up then! You heard the woman - everybody out!

But before I end my participation in this thread,

I bet you don't. I reckon you've got a bet with yourself to see how long you can keep me posting...

for those possible lurkers, I also suggest reading this Wiki article on the Taliban^WP.

Some cut and pastes:



The Taliban are Pashtun and per the wiki Pashtun people ^WP article:

Taliban are bad men and powerful. Got it. Totally agree - never said otherwise.

And I have to respond to what you said here:


So, since the Pashtun decide that non-Pashtun Afghani women are fair game for the sex trade market, according to your viewpoint, non-Afghanis or perhaps even non-Pashtuns should not offer any assistance because its not their culture? That is really sickening...

I don't remember suggesting that people of the same, or neighbouring cultures shouldn't take a stand when someone else is kidnapping their women...

I wonder why they aren't standing up to those powerful, well-supported, well-armed, tyrannical religious thugs?

Oh and on the subject of assisting, just so you're aware - those two years I spent in Afghanistan wasn't ALL sightseeing and free lunches.

and I'm am now finished with this thread.

I bet you're not.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

My synopsis:

SMVC: I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force;

Opposing Choir: how can you defend honor killings, how barbaric, have you no sense of decency

SMVC: Once again, I'm against honor killings but I don't think we should impose our values on others by force

OC: Clearly we have superior values and they suit us very well, how can you defend honor killings (gruesome details) have you no sense of decency.


And on and on and on and on.

Certainly seems to be the case. Glad it's not just me and a few others who see that.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

How long do you think honor killings would exist if they weren't implemented by force? Who volunteers to get murdered or even have acid thrown in their face or have parts of their bodies amputated? It makes a big difference whether the victims have any choice in the matter.

Ye-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-s... Nobody is disputing Honour Killings are carried out by force. The very nature of murder suggests that the victim isn't usually complicit. What's your point?

And if you look into the various links about the Taliban in Afghanistan, it's clear that they were a fringe group put into power and financed by outsiders who could care less about Afghanis and a great deal about their own finances and political desires.

Yes? What's your point?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Except we said over and over, no one was talking 'force'.

And I said 'force' does not necessarily = physical violence, or 'at gunpoint'.

Then he went on saying that only people within the country have the right to say anything.

I did? I'm pretty sure I said 'we' should certainly assist a desire for change being driven from within a foreign culture who request that assistance.

And we all said one could make a value judgement and exert pressure without being part of the culture.

'Exert Pressure'... sounds a bit like 'force'...

ETA: In fact, let's have a look:

Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.

"pressure or force", eh? Sound interchangeable to me...

So you kind of missed some details.

And yet AGAIN you missed posting the links you promised, and the ones I have been asking for.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

What Skeptic Ginger said, and also I couldn't help but point out the absurdity of being concerned about using force (which like SG said no one had suggested) when the only ones using force are the people doing the honor killings.

I wonder if the irony of you writing what I hilighted while quoting SG using the phrase 'exert pressure' is lost on you?

Still here, by the way? It's almost like you've got a bet on with yourself about how long you can keep this thread going...

 

[Nessie]

It's an answer, certainly - just not the answer to the question I asked you.



You'd think so wouldn't you? Did you notice one of the examples given in this thread was of a WOMAN carrying out a horrific Honour Killing?

It is my answer to your question. We should not impose our ways on others as I would expect them not impose theirs on us. We can circumvent that issue by pointing out to others that there is another way, don't brutally kill daughters who look at boys or are raped by their brother and they should have the free choice to do it differently.

Would she have killed if she knew she had a choice not to and she could make that choice free from sanctions herself?

 

[Kaylee]

That's pretty much the case. Sweet Water And Bitter is an excellent book about it. The strange thing is that Britain, in spite of many shameful activities in its past (and indeed future) seemed to be driven by a genuine moral imperative, in spite of being one of the leading slaving nations.

Thanks for the referral, I've added it to my "books to read" list. As you say, it is strange, and I'd like to read more about it.

If you or anyone else also happen to know of a book that explains why countries who weren't really on board with the idea signed treaties with Britain supporting the end of slave trade on the Atlantic, I'd like to read about that too. No doubt it was due to a combination of carrot and stick tactics, but I'd really like to know more about how Britain managed to get those treaties.

 

[Kaylee]

There are two things here that, while linked, are still separate. One is the body of atrocities carried out by the Taliban. This is something we should combat, even after we leave Afghanistan. For example, an international force of volunteers who have a zeal to combat slavery, human trafficking and forced prostitution could and should remain active.

Unfortunately, the matter of honor killings will be quite a bit harder to deal with. In most of the countries where these occur the entire culture supports such behavior. Otherwise, these atrocities would fade away. We cannot, in all practicality, enforce a ban on honor killings from without. Constant pressure on these cultures to change there ways would be one way to force an eventual end to these abominable practices.

An idea occurs to me that might save lives. Western countries could set up places in which to receive women, girls and others who could be exiled and considered dead to their families. We could then educate, westernize and transport these exiles to more enlightened societies. They would effectively cease to exist in their old communities, satisfying the honor code until we can implement enough change to end it.

I don't think the patriarchs of the tribal culture could be persuaded to change. I agree that directly offering the women alternative choices could effect change. I think it would still be difficult to implement -- it's not just about honor killing. The Taliban has also enforced a system of what is effectively house arrest and I'm sure it would be difficult to help the women, esp. the ones that live in smaller communities where strangers would be very noticeable.

This option would change the status of women from property to people with options, and I would expect that Taliban to do everything they could to stop it.

ETA: In other countries, assuming that the women are not living under house arrest and have more freedom, it would be easier to help them this way.

 

[Kaylee]

There's an international force of volunteers there now*. Unfortunately they support the Taliban.


*Or was. I can't say how many of them are left.

Of course, this is not what I mean. If you have something constructive to offer, I'll gladly listen to it.

I think it would be interesting to know why these volunteers decided to support the Taliban. You can't solve a problem until you understand it.


ETA: Anybody know if Antique Hunter is still around? I think he worked for a NGO in Afghanistan, it would be interesting to read his take on things.