Honor killing in Pakistan

[Belz...]

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

I mean, those aren't the only two options I may hold. Namely, yours and your strawman.

 

[Belz...]

Killing 'others' requires people to first believe the 'others' are not human.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I mean, those aren't the only two options I may hold. Namely, yours and your strawman.

But you cannot name, describe or otherwise say what option you are referring too?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it doesn't.

Not when you take my answer out of context. Try applying what I said to the example I was answering. Excuse me for not writing a paragraph of unrelated-to-the-post-exceptions.

 

[llwyd]

No, it doesn't.

Yeah, unfortunately. I'm afraid killing and aggression come pretty naturally to us, and obviously they must have some evolutionary value too. Of course, also co-operation and general niceness come pretty naturally, and have also lots of evolutionary value. But evolutionary value is logically a pragmatic criterion: anything that works will go, and we cannot know for sure till after the fact whether something works or not. That's why evolution is not really a very practical guide to morality. (Well, we probably have the concept of morality and ethics because in these matters biology doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory guide...)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ever seen the Kurt Russel movie "Soldier" ? They pick babies at birth and raise them to be cold killers.

Far be it from me to make an argument from a movie, but assuming you could take a child from birth and raise them this way, would Ginger say we're deprogramming their natural tendencies ? I could reply that children raised in 'normal' homes in the west are also deprogrammed of said tendencies. We teach them that hitting each other is not nice, while otherwise they do it willy-nilly. We tell them that stealing is not nice. We tell them to wipe their butts when they go to the stool. Oddly, we keep having to tell them all these civilised things, over and over, over several years, only to have them memorise part of it and ignore the rest all too often, forcing us to have laws in place to prevent them from running red lights all the time and endangering their kin. Doesn't sound to me like we're genetically predisposed to be nice to each other.

Not that a movie is exactly a scientific citation, but you are doing the same thing as Westprog, that is misunderstanding the concepts.

Being born with a moral framework does not mean it is absolute. Yes, nurture can affect it, so can brain damage and other forms of mental illness. According to early research there are genetic variations affecting how an individual's morals are expressed.

But the old paradigm, the one people on this forum continue to cling to, is that morality is learned, as if it is taught on a blank slate and if it weren't for said teaching and cultural emersion, children would be all over the map when it came to moral behavior.

The evidence, much of which is fairly new, is that we do not have blank moral slates at birth. None of the counter arguments presented in this discussion, those that say not-blank-moral-slates can be trashed after birth, are relevant to the fact that said not-blank-moral-slates are indeed the human condition at birth. In other words all these exceptions don't address the point, that is people do not normally kill and that is because killing people in general goes against the moral brain a healthy person is born with.


Again, we are cross talking concepts. The problem is your concept is that an objective morality must be universal and fixed or it does not exist. Or maybe you think said morality only comes from god or culture or learning.

Brain, genetic and animal behavior research has revealed that we are not born with a moral blank slate.

 

[westprog]

Ever seen the Kurt Russel movie "Soldier" ? They pick babies at birth and raise them to be cold killers.

Far be it from me to make an argument from a movie, but assuming you could take a child from birth and raise them this way, would Ginger say we're deprogramming their natural tendencies ? I could reply that children raised in 'normal' homes in the west are also deprogrammed of said tendencies. We teach them that hitting each other is not nice, while otherwise they do it willy-nilly. We tell them that stealing is not nice. We tell them to wipe their butts when they go to the stool. Oddly, we keep having to tell them all these civilised things, over and over, over several years, only to have them memorise part of it and ignore the rest all too often, forcing us to have laws in place to prevent them from running red lights all the time and endangering their kin. Doesn't sound to me like we're genetically predisposed to be nice to each other.

It's really not that odd. The distinction between nature and nurture is not as distinct as is sometimes made out. Whether human beings are violent because of a violence gene or because of environmental conditions, doesn't matter. Violence is clearly there, and inherent for a million years. It's hard to imagine a non-violent carnivore, unless they subsist solely on carrion - which we don't. A human incapable of violence would be defective, in a genetic sense.

This doesn't have any implications as to whether we ought to be violent to our neighbours.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, unfortunately. I'm afraid killing and aggression come pretty naturally to us, and obviously they must have some evolutionary value too. Of course, also co-operation and general niceness come pretty naturally, and have also lots of evolutionary value. But evolutionary value is logically a pragmatic criterion: anything that works will go, and we cannot know for sure till after the fact whether something works or not. That's why evolution is not really a very practical guide to morality. (Well, we probably have the concept of morality and ethics because in these matters biology doesn't seem to be a very satisfactory guide...)

Natural aggression is a different concept. There's much to be learned comparing Bonobos to Chimpanzees in that respect. I found Goodall's discovery of a serial killer and warring among the chimpanzees to be fascinating. But it took her decades of observation before she saw those traits. Aggression, yes, but killing other chimps wasn't common.

Again, I don't think the fact aggression can lead to killing negates the evidence that we are born with a built in reluctance to kill other humans. Killing during an act of aggression is a bit different than purposeful murder, ie killing with the sole purpose of killing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
This doesn't have any implications as to whether we ought to be violent to our neighbours.

Again, if your concept is morality (aka oughts) come from sky daddies, pixie dust, purely cultural or you believe there is no such thing as an ought, or science cannot determine oughts, yadda, yadda, then we are cross talking.

I don't use that paradigm because I don't find it fits the evidence. When the full understanding of the neurobiology of oughts is determined, say many years of research from now, including exactly how the variables of nature and nurture interact, will the fact 'ought' differs from individual to individual make it not exist?

 

[westprog]

Emphasis mine.

Our what ?

There may well be a built-in disincentive against killing members of one's own species, just as there's a built in incentive to mate with one's own species. In the case of human beings, there are clearly circumstances where the built-in inclination to kill people who are depriving oneself or one's close relatives of resources applies. The two things are not biologically distinct. We spend more time feeding our kids than killing our neighbours, but that doesn't mean that both impulses are fundamentally human.

 

[westprog]

Natural aggression is a different concept. There's much to be learned comparing Bonobos to Chimpanzees in that respect. I found Goodall's discovery of a serial killer and warring among the chimpanzees to be fascinating. But it took her decades of observation before she saw those traits. Aggression, yes, but killing other chimps wasn't common.

And in most species, killing other members of the species is unheard of. However, that doesn't mean that it's unnatural for humans.

Again, I don't think the fact aggression can lead to killing negates the evidence that we are born with a built in reluctance to kill other humans. Killing during an act of aggression is a bit different than purposeful murder, ie killing with the sole purpose of killing.

Other species have built-in safeguards so that even when fighting brutally, death almost never results. Humans don't have this, clearly.

 

[westprog]

Again, if your concept is morality (aka oughts) come from sky daddies, pixie dust, purely cultural or you believe there is no such thing as an ought, or science cannot determine oughts, yadda, yadda, then we are cross talking.

I don't use that paradigm because I don't find it fits the evidence. When the full understanding of the neurobiology of oughts is determined, say many years of research from now, including exactly how the variables of nature and nurture interact, will the fact 'ought' differs from individual to individual make it not exist?

You have taken two aspects of human biology, both of which are equally intrinsic, called one of them "morality" and decided to derive an "ought" from that, and to exclude other human behaviour from your "ought". Talking about pixie dust doesn't in any way support your argument.

There are cases where disfunctional human beings act in violent ways, due to a brain disorder. This is not anywhere close to being an explanation of human violence.

You've used biology to describe one part of human behaviour, and to say that humans should behave like that because we behave like that, and looked at another part of human behaviour to say that humans shouldn't behave like that in spite of the fact that they do behave like that. You've labelled different aspects of human activity as "moral" and "immoral", exactly according to what major religions say, using totally arbitrary criteria, and labelled it science.

 

[westprog]

Not that a movie is exactly a scientific citation, but you are doing the same thing as Westprog, that is misunderstanding the concepts.

Being born with a moral framework does not mean it is absolute. Yes, nurture can affect it, so can brain damage and other forms of mental illness. According to early research there are genetic variations affecting how an individual's morals are expressed.

But the old paradigm, the one people on this forum continue to cling to, is that morality is learned, as if it is taught on a blank slate and if it weren't for said teaching and cultural emersion, children would be all over the map when it came to moral behavior.

The evidence, much of which is fairly new, is that we do not have blank moral slates at birth. None of the counter arguments presented in this discussion, those that say not-blank-moral-slates can be trashed after birth, are relevant to the fact that said not-blank-moral-slates are indeed the human condition at birth. In other words all these exceptions don't address the point, that is people do not normally kill and that is because killing people in general goes against the moral brain a healthy person is born with.


Again, we are cross talking concepts. The problem is your concept is that an objective morality must be universal and fixed or it does not exist. Or maybe you think said morality only comes from god or culture or learning.

Brain, genetic and animal behavior research has revealed that we are not born with a moral blank slate.

You persist in labelling certain aspects of what human beings do as "morality" as if the term had any kind of biological meaning.

There's certainly evidence of "altruistic" behaviour in various species, where individuals sacrifice themselves in favour of those with similar genetic makeup - just as they destroy those of a different genetic makeup. That can't reasonably be called "moral" behaviour.

 

[Kaylee]

Here's my take on it --

Research studies on primates, children and primitive tribes seem to show that our innate capabilities include the ability to comprehend quantities (at least in small numbers), fairness, empathy and an ability to socialize within groups -- usually in a hierarchical manner. That as a starting point, combined and built up with culture leaves us with different systems of morality. The fact that some of our abilities are biologically based helps explain why our different systems of morality have much in common. The fact that not all cultures are equal helps explains why the more successful cultures have even more in common.

I agree with the arguments that say morality is a combination of both nature and nuture, similar to language.

 

[Kaylee]

You persist in labelling certain aspects of what human beings do as "morality" as if the term had any kind of biological meaning.

There's certainly evidence of "altruistic" behaviour in various species, where individuals sacrifice themselves in favour of those with similar genetic makeup - just as they destroy those of a different genetic makeup. That can't reasonably be called "moral" behaviour.

I'm wondering if some people are using the word moral to mean "proper or good behavior" and others are using it to mean "codes of conduct, both 'good' and 'bad'" and yet others to mean "social mores". That might be muddying the waters.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm wondering if some people are using the word moral to mean "proper or good behavior" and others are using it to mean "codes of conduct, both 'good' and 'bad'" and yet others to mean "social mores". That might be muddying the waters.

I'm certain some people don't understand why and how I see the 'ought' question from within a different paradigm. The way I see it many science oriented persons have been hung up so long on "science cannot determine 'ought'" that it is hard to step back and start looking at morality in a different context, a process that starts with evolution and the brain, not with gods and/or external learning.

 

[westprog]

But the old paradigm, the one people on this forum continue to cling to, is that morality is learned,

I've repeatedly said that this is irrelevant. Whether or not "morality" is inherent in genetics, or part of human development - or whether the same applies to immorality - means absolutely nothing.

If we didn't have a capacity to be moral, or immoral, then we wouldn't do it. End of.

 

[westprog]

I'm certain some people don't understand why and how I see the 'ought' question from within a different paradigm. The way I see it many science oriented persons have been hung up so long on "science cannot determine 'ought'" that it is hard to step back and start looking at morality in a different context, a process that starts with evolution and the brain, not with gods and/or external learning.

Or one could consider the possibility that all those scientists* were in fact right.

*Useful name for "science oriented persons".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've repeatedly said that this is irrelevant. Whether or not "morality" is inherent in genetics, or part of human development - or whether the same applies to immorality - means absolutely nothing.

If we didn't have a capacity to be moral, or immoral, then we wouldn't do it. End of.

What's your point then?

 

[westprog]

What's your point then?

The same as it's always been. Human behaviour is natural to humans. Either you label behaviour as moral if it's typically human, which is pointless, or you partition human behaviour according to personal preference - which is arbitrary.

There is reason to differentiate moral from immoral behaviour - in a biological sense. No reason for it has been given. Human beings do, entirely naturally, many things which are immoral. The fact that something is of benefit, evolutionary speaking, is not a defence.