• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Honor killing in Pakistan

Nessie said:
No that is down to breeding and conditioning by tradition and environment. But you could get anyone to do it if their animals which they depend on are being savaged by foxes and dogs provide a means of stopping that.

It just so happens for some that chase between dog and fox became a kind of sport and less cruel methods of killing foxes were ignored.
Click to expand...

So we're born with an in-built sense of kindness to all living things then? That's why we have animal cruelty laws?

What about BEFORE we had animal cruelty laws? Were we born indifferent to animals, then quickly evolved to be born kind to animals, over the course of say 100 years?

Or did our cultural moral zeitgeist just change, and we're born as a moral 'blank slate', and have to learn 'right' from 'wrong'?
 
Last edited:
I have been getting them from my dad who was a soldier and from the study of military history up to the present day.

You particularly moved the goal posts as shown in post #407 when you claimed what i had said was rubbish but accepted a soldier would still have to charge an enemy out of a trench if so ordered by a commander.

I think our natural state is not blank but instead it has both kill and not kill depending on situation or circumstances. So not kill your offspring, kill attackers, not kill random strangers for no reason, kill if desperate for scarce resources to survive.

Hence a soldier attacking the enemy needs some conditioning, as killing is still traumatic but not as much conditioning as a mother needs to kill their offspring in a honour killing.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
So we're born with an in-built sense of kindness to all living things then? ......
Click to expand...

No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own, our pets, animals that we need for food and their other products, but not to unknown aggressive males or lions.
 
Nessie said:
I have been getting them from my dad who was a soldier and from the study of military history up to the present day.

You particularly moved the goal posts as shown in post #407 when you claimed what i had said was rubbish but accepted a soldier would still have to charge an enemy out of a trench if so ordered by a commander.
Click to expand...

I owe you an apology; I checked post #407 back and it should have read "point at ANY target..", not "at A target...", which changes things somewhat, and makes more sense in the context of the point I'm making, ie; a modern soldier is expected to be able to judge what is lawful and act accordingly. Sorry for the confusion.

Nessie said:
I think our natural state is not blank but instead it has both kill and not kill depending on situation or circumstances. So not kill your offspring, kill attackers, not kill random strangers for no reason, kill if desperate for scarce resources to survive.

Hence a soldier attacking the enemy needs some conditioning, as killing is still traumatic but not as much conditioning as a mother needs to kill their offspring in a honour killing.
Click to expand...

I put 'blank', but (as I put in my last post while you were writing this one) I kind of mean 'indifferent'.

We're saying 'conditioning', but I'm not sure it's the right thing to say if we're born indifferent/morally blank. We could kill depending on the situation with no problem, but until we are taught our society's moral values, we wouldn't know or care if it was 'right' or 'wrong' - so there's no compulsion, or inhibition towards killing.
 
Nessie said:
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own, our pets, animals that we need for food and their other products, but not to unknown aggressive males or lions.
Click to expand...

Or game animals that we hunt for fun, hundreds of years after we ceased needing to practice the skill?
 
Last edited:
To be fair to Skeptic Ginger, the only way to conclusively prove we're born with morals built-in would be to raise a child from birth to adulthood in a sterile, controlled environment and then test them. Would be extremely difficult to do though; imagine using children's books to teach the child to read while trying to avoid any moral lessons...
 
Lithrael said:
I think you guys are talking past one another. You're talking about the fight half of a fight or flight situation which is well documented. They're talking about a natural disinclination to harm someone when you have ample time to consider it, which seems clearly indicated by various experiments on empathy etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is disputing that empathy exists. It's the claim that empathy has some kind of special status, biologically, which unempathetic actions don't have.

The existence of a gene which disposes people towards being more empathetic in no way implies a sound biological basis for morality.

I also think the "defective" they mentioned was meant to refer to straight-up psychopaths who have no particular disinclination to harm besides repercussions imposed by other people. I don't think they meant to say anyone who is capable of killing is defective. Because that would be silly.
Click to expand...

That might not be what SG meant to say, but it's what she did say.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is one reason why I have so little interest in posting citations for you. You don't understand the concepts involved. It's a waste of time to discuss this with you until you bring your neurobiology and genetic science knowledge base up to a higher level of understanding than you have.
Click to expand...

"It's all far, far too complicated for you to understand. Nevertheless, all the data prove that I am right."
 
Nessie said:
Hence a soldier attacking the enemy needs some conditioning, as killing is still traumatic but not as much conditioning as a mother needs to kill their offspring in a honour killing.
Click to expand...

Plus, the mother would have been brought up from birth believing that murder is wrong, but honour killing isn't - it's absolutely the right thing to do. She would have been learning both at the same time; not grown up thinking all murder is wrong until the age of 18, when she would then be intensively programmed to accept honour killings.

Don't many US states punish the crime of killing another human being by killing a human being?

"Planning and carrying out the execution of a human being is WRONG! We will now demonstrate this by planning and carrying out the execution of a human being!". Funny when you look at it like that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But these are a minority of people, it is not the norm.
Click to expand...

Again, evidence ? Today people have little incentive to kill each other because we live in such a comfortable world. I didn't say people killed willy-nilly, but they certainly had less qualms about hacking each other with swords over matters we'd consider trivial.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I posted a very specific genetic influence on a well known moral dilemma that explains why people's response to the dilemma differs. It's not simply upbringing or culture, it's directly related to measurable brain chemistry.

Your answer was not to discuss the neurology or the genetics or even the study. You answer was, you don't get it therefore you dismiss it.
Click to expand...

You made a very specific assertion that people who kill are defective. I have yet to see anything in support of that assertion.
 
Nessie said:
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own, our pets, animals that we need for food and their other products, but not to unknown aggressive males or lions.
Click to expand...

That's precisely the point. If we had universal empathy, we probably wouldn't be able to function. We have empathy which is limited in its scope. We have hostility, which is also limited. The balance between the two depends on circumstances. The idea that our empathetic impulses are normal, whereas our hostile impulses are due to some kind of genetic fault is simply absurd.
 
Nessie said:
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own
Click to expand...

I think this is just a cultural evolution of our natural instinct to protect helpless young and perpetuate the species. A lot of animals have this, a lot don't - If it was built-in, rodents wouldn't eat their new-born, and chimps wouldn't kill baby chimps.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
...
But they're all people. Presumably innate behaviors are innate everywhere, yes?
Click to expand...
Innate behaviors does not require said behavior be a single rigid thing. I don't understand why this concept is excluded from people claiming morality is learned (or comes from the magic sky daddy or pixie dust). The fact we don't all have the exact same morality does not preclude that moral framework being the result of our hardwired brains.

It's a very easy paradigm for me.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
British people are only caring towards animals they pet or eat, and anything else is OK to be chased with, and ripped apart by dogs?

British landed gentry are all born defective when it comes to foxes?
Click to expand...
Why not care about animals that are cute and furry and with big eyes and not animals that are hunted for food or sports or that are ugly?

Why would it need to be all or none instead of a more nuanced form of empathy?

Most farmers don't give personal names to animals they intend to slaughter for meat. But they name their pets. Why is that? Why do people mourn their pet's passing but not the meat animal on their table?
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
I think this is just a cultural evolution of our natural instinct to protect helpless young and perpetuate the species. A lot of animals have this, a lot don't - If it was built-in, rodents wouldn't eat their new-born, and chimps wouldn't kill baby chimps.
Click to expand...
Your arguments of all or none just fail one after the other.

Here's a hint: the genetics and brains of all the lifeforms on Earth differ.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
For the readers general consideration, dehumanizing is a long known concept:

The Lucifer Effect: DehumanizationThe fact innate morality is plastic, or not the same in every human, or exists with fuzzy edges or a range of moral beliefs and behaviors, does not mean neurobiology is not the underlying mechanism of morality.

It's like saying, because people are different shapes and sizes, or because one can over eat or under eat and affect one's body size, it must not be genetic makeup underlying the difference.
Click to expand...

I am sad about something because I am culturally conditioned to be sad about it, and this triggers chemicals in my brain which causes the feelings I associate with sadness, and certain physical reactions.

If I have no moral sense of whether something is 'right' or 'wrong', I will not feel anything about it at all. If I am not taught stealing is 'wrong' then I will have no qualms about it.

Ever watched two babies play? Ever seen one take a toy from the other and play with it happily, without any remorse or understanding of why the other child is crying? Ever wonder why a (good) parent will then come over and demonstrate simply the concept of sharing and property? Why do they feel the need? Or is the baby just defective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom