Honor killing in Pakistan

[Nessie]

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.

Ah, but look at the circumstances where young are eaten. It is not the norm or else that animal would die out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Best argument presented yet. I agree.

However, even when most people need to kill another person, it's very hard to do. It goes against our moral grain.

But there are many aggressive people (not to start a gender argument but one thinks of males being more aggressive on average than females). Yes, those people are also acting on their innate morality. There is a range when it comes to one's moral compass.

However, I would be confident saying even more aggressive people would not necessarily be killers except for fear of the law or a god.

Clearly some people murder. But it's on the fringe range of behavior, the tails of the bell curve so to speak.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

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.

Wasn't it you who used chimps as another example of built-in empathy? So now you're saying that it doesn't matter?

You do a lot of TELLING people they've got it wrong, but you don't SHOW why, do you?

When I was being brainwashed to kill - sorry - TRAINED by the army, they taught us "Show - don't tell". That was right after the "Basic Dehumanisation Techniques To Help You Kill Sand-*******" part.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah, but look at the circumstances where young are eaten. It is not the norm or else that animal would die out.

He's having trouble with multiple variable problems.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

I agree with everything you just said, but I don't think anyone else will disagree either except in a semantic way, this being jref.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Ah, but look at the circumstances where young are eaten. It is not the norm or else that animal would die out.

To quote Tom Jones - "It's not unusual".

You're setting a false dichotomy; either it's the norm and everyone does it, therefore it's unsustainable, or it's so rare that it can be dismissed.

Have a look at how many pups a rat will have in one litter, and how many litters a rat can produce yearly. Have you thought that maybe rats simply have no real protective instinct towards their young? Remember - the genetics and brains of all life forms differ...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wasn't it you who used chimps as another example of built-in empathy? So now you're saying that it doesn't matter?

Oh for pity's sake, your straw men are as bad as your false dichotomies. BTW, "brainwashed unthinking automatons" is another straw man.

You do a lot of TELLING people they've got it wrong, but you don't SHOW why, do you?

You ignored my links, hand waved them away without any discussion. There's no sense posting more.

 

[TimCallahan]

Belz raises a very important question. Who is 'defective' in the following scenario:

A devout Muslim who sees no other option than to kill his only female child in order to maintain family honour because the weight of 3000+ years of his culture leaves him no choice, is just about to shoot her while she sleeps; his wife sees him about to do this and stabs him to death.

Which is the 'defective' human being - the man or his wife? Or both?

I see no dilemma here whatsoever. The guy is defective. His actions go against the preservation of his own line. His wife, who preserves the life of a child by stabbing him, thus preserving both his genetic line and her own, is not in the least bit defective. 3,000 years of messed up culture weighs as nothing against the biological imperative that is billions of yeas old.

I would also add that anyone who would deliberately murder a child doesn't deserve to live. If this is a "cultural bias," it's one I'll flaunt gladly.

 

[Lithrael]

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?

This sort of thing is pretty well covered in phases of development. At first a baby has no concept of other entities being things like itself. Empathy doesn't show up until after they've gained a little more sophistication.

But look. This is barking up the wrong tree, I think. It's like claiming human use of language isn't innate because a baby doesn't have it and that they must learn theirs. There's no correct language just as there's no correct morality. But all language is FOR the same thing, unless it's occupying a weird niche or has got away from its natural use. The same for morality.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You made a very specific assertion that people who kill are defective. I have yet to see anything in support of that assertion.

That's not exactly what I meant but I can see how you interpreted it that way.

It's not that killing in all circumstances is a defective act, but even someone who kills in self defense is likely to experience remorse for having done so.

Bringing in soldier 'conditioning' as it has been described requires a whole other thread. I think it goes beyond this discussion. Mobs, wars, hired to kill like an executioner, all those are beyond the scope of a discussion of 'normal' because there are so many other variables to discuss.

So, yes, I think it is a moral norm that humans don't generally kill. There are people whose moral brain functions are defective that kill. There are intoxicated people who kill. There are people with anger/jealously issues that kill and in all those cases I would say something is wrong with them at least at the time of the murder.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Oh for pity's sake, your straw men are as bad as your false dichotomies. BTW, "brainwashed unthinking automatons" is another straw man.

It is? Because I used it in reply to this:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy
They call it "basic training." The soldier is conditioned to follow orders; without question, without hesitation, no matter how objectionable or nonsensical they may seem. Watch Full Metal Jacket (Warning: hilariously NSFW language). Fyi, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman was played by a REAL drill instructor, so this is straight from the horse's mouth sir no offense meant sir.

and it seemed like a fair summary, wouldn't you say?

You ignored my links, hand waved them away without any discussion. There's no sense posting more.

No, I didn't - I just dismissed them because they didn't seem to support anything you were saying.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

False dishotomy.

So what is/are the other variable/s then if not laws against and a fear of punishment by the state or a god?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

That's not exactly what I meant but I can see how you interpreted it that way.

It's not that killing in all circumstances is a defective act, but even someone who kills in self defense is likely to experience remorse for having done so.

Bringing in soldier 'conditioning' as it has been described requires a whole other thread. I think it goes beyond this discussion. Mobs, wars, hired to kill like an executioner, all those are beyond the scope of a discussion of 'normal' because there are so many other variables to discuss.

So, yes, I think it is a moral norm that humans don't generally kill. There are people whose moral brain functions are defective that kill. There are intoxicated people who kill. There are people with anger/jealously issues that kill and in all those cases I would say something is wrong with them at least at the time of the murder.

What about thieves? Are they defective too? What about adulterers?

 

[Nessie]

To quote Tom Jones - "It's not unusual".

You're setting a false dichotomy; either it's the norm and everyone does it, therefore it's unsustainable, or it's so rare that it can be dismissed.

Have a look at how many pups a rat will have in one litter, and how many litters a rat can produce yearly. Have you thought that maybe rats simply have no real protective instinct towards their young? Remember - the genetics and brains of all life forms differ...

I posted a brief sentence pointing out that there are reasons why sometimes some animals will eat their young. That is not the be all and end all that is a false dilemma.

Then you do another swift move of the goalposts where you have made up a need to question me about rats and how we all differ.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"It's all far, far too complicated for you to understand. Nevertheless, all the data prove that I am right."

Sometimes that is the case. And it's not that something is too complicated to understand, but quite often someone is arguing in a field in which they lack basic expertise.

The role the brain and genetics play in moral thought is well established, beginning back in the day when Phineas Gage was injured with rebar through his brain. The research has continued both with people who have specific brain damage, that genetic study I cited and the study of the evolution of morality by looking at moral behavior of animals.

If someone has no background in this field, they can tend to dismiss anything presented because it doesn't fit in their current paradigm. I don't feel like investing the time to provide this extensive background body of knowledge to someone who truly hasn't read any of it.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I might start a new topic; "We're all born with morals built-in" - does this mean babies are aware it is considered morally wrong to have other sexual partners when you're married?

 

[westprog]

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.

The problem is not the assumption that when people behave morally, it's due to their hardwired brains behaving normally. It's the assumption that when people behave in an immoral way, that it's due to their brains behaving abnormally.

If we simply define everything that human beings normally do as being moral, then obviously morality has a biological basis. However, morality then disappears as a useful concept. Whatever we do is moral, so there's no guidance necessary.

If the claim is that some behaviour is moral, and some immoral, then a biological theory of morality needs to establish that in some way, immoral behaviour is disfunctional and faulty. There has been no attempt to establish this, beyond the circular reasoning that the behaviour is atypical, and therefore must indicate a less effective organism.

The evidence of human history is strongly in favour of violence, cruelty and selfishness being entirely normal and expected.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I posted a brief sentence pointing out that there are reasons why sometimes some animals will eat their young. That is not the be all and end all that is a false dilemma.

Then you do another swift move of the goalposts where you have made up a need to question me about rats and how we all differ.

You gave reasons? What were they?

The remark about how we all differ wasn't entirely directed at you...

What were you saying then? Because the only answers you've given is that it is not the norm because the species would die out if it was, and the other response is "Well, of course in every culture/species you get murderers...", or along those lines. Did you ever consider a middle ground?

I'm not moving any goalposts - that would suggest I asked you to prove something; you did, then I changed the criteria of proof I required. I didn't, I asked you a follow-on question about rats.

 

[westprog]

So, yes, I think it is a moral norm that humans don't generally kill. There are people whose moral brain functions are defective that kill. There are intoxicated people who kill. There are people with anger/jealously issues that kill and in all those cases I would say something is wrong with them at least at the time of the murder.

If you confine "humanity" to mean "Westerners living in the late twentieth/early twenty-first centuries" then you may well be right. However, that is not the human norm.

The Comanche of Northern Texas had a society where it was considered normal to kill, rape and torture members of opposing tribes, Mexicans and Texans. Their entire society participated in this, and it was not felt to be in any way abnormal. Within their own people, they were kind and loving.

The white society that encountered the Comanche were horrified by these practices. They considered themselves better and more moral. Nevertheless, they managed, by various means, to repress, exterminate and imprison the Comanche until they were no longer a threat.

I suppose one could come up with a bizarre theory by which some strange Texan virus caused such atypical behaviour, but this can be countermanded by the obvious observation that every human society exists because someone else was removed. We all live on an Indian graveyard.

In conditions of plenty, human beings can be as empathetic as they want. Come the bad times, morality adjusts.

 

[Nessie]

You gave reasons? What were they?

The remark about how we all differ wasn't entirely directed at you...

What were you saying then? Because the only answers you've given is that it is not the norm because the species would die out if it was, and the other response is "Well, of course in every culture/species you get murderers...", or along those lines. Did you ever consider a middle ground?

I'm not moving any goalposts - that would suggest I asked you to prove something; you did, then I changed the criteria of proof I required. I didn't, I asked you a follow-on question about rats.

I pointed out that there are reasons, I did not say what they were. That should have been enough for you to realise that I know there are various reasons, the main one being if eating our young was the norm we would die out.

The moving goalposts comes about because you keep assuming I have not considered other matters other than the one under immediate discussion. So, of course I have considered a middle ground and if you really had read my posts you would know that.