• 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

westprog said:
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.
Click to expand...
IOW, you simply dismiss everything I said. All you care about was your semantic objection to the words indicating 'abnormal'.:rolleyes:
 
Well, I'm certainly interested to know how you get ought from is... I'm sure we can explain completely biologically all our various behaviours, but I don't exactly see as where the morality is then, biology is an amoral process, it's something that just happens. Is this a way of saying that natural science will simply end all discussion about any choices, any preferences as illusionary - we are machines reacting to various stimuli? (Well, that's going several steps ahead, but I would think that finding ought from is, from biological processes, would end all discussion about moral choices. Though of course Ginger, you are both having and eating your cake, as you seem to find "good" and "bad" reactions rising from biological processes which distinction I don't exactly get.)
 
Last edited:
llwyd said:
Well, I'm certainly interested to know how you get ought from is... I'm sure we can explain completely biologically all our various behaviours, but I don't exactly see as where the morality is then, biology is an amoral process, it something that happens. Is this a way of saying that natural science will simply end all discussion about any choices, any preferences as illusionary - we are machines reacting to various stimuli? (Well, that's going several steps ahead, but I would think that finding ought from is, from biological processes, would end all discussion about moral choices. Though of course Ginger, you are both having and eating your cake, as you seem to find "good" and "bad" reactions rising from biological processes which distinction I don't exactly get.)
Click to expand...
Morality is not some magical thing, any more than toolmaking is. From my perspective it's been given special attributes that are contrived. The basis of this attribution has seeds in the 'humans are made by god' myths.

Why not describe and deal with morality for what it is, an evolved human emotion probably a combination of empathy and sense of fairness and maybe some other components not fully described.

We see the evolutionary steps to our moral behavior in the moral behavior of animals just like we see the evolutionary steps in animal versions of an eye. I.e. it evolved.

The argument of whether or not we are machines or we have free will is probably one of the last real philosophical questions left, IMO. I don't know and I don't care. I have the illusion if not the reality of free will. It's a separate issue from approaching morality for what it is, not magical, not special, not something only humans have.
 
Well, we have certain behaviours rising from biology and evolution. Some of them are directed towards co-operation and empathy, some towards aggression and domination. In history, and in much of the planet today, aggression and domination are quite prevalent. We can guess that the former instincts are better, more efficient in evolutionary terms, but I don't really know how we could prove even that. Some people might prefer the warlike, domination oriented straits - and how could we say that they are "wrong", if biology is all we have, just various brain processes? I don't even know how we could prefer anything, isn't it then a question of only describing our behaviour, not evaluating it, if we rely solely on material, biological processes? Morality as a concept implies judgement and choice, and I don't see how we could judge and choose if we only have biology as our guide.
 
llwyd said:
Well, we have certain behaviours rising from biology and evolution. Some of them are directed towards co-operation and empathy, some towards aggression and domination. In history, and in much of the planet today, aggression and domination are quite prevalent. We can guess that the former instincts are better, more efficient in evolutionary terms, but I don't really know how we could prove even that.
Click to expand...
You look for the successful outcomes.


llwyd said:
Some people might prefer the warlike, domination oriented straits - and how could we say that they are "wrong", if biology is all we have, just various brain processes? I don't even know how we could prefer anything, isn't it then a question of only describing our behaviour, not evaluating it, if we rely solely on material, biological processes? Morality as a concept implies judgement and choice, and I don't see how we could judge and choose if we only have biology as our guide.
Click to expand...
Your underlying premise is that there is no way to weigh good or bad, right or wrong. But I contend there is.

You can look at outcomes. And the more we study and tease out the elements that result in what we call moral beliefs or decisions, the more we can see which are normal, why they deviate, what outcomes you get when they deviate.

Can you honestly say you don't know if the world would be better off without genocide, racism and war? It's an indeterminable value?
 
IMHO, how we decide to treat others is also driven by a desire to be treated well by others -- (the golden rule, expressed backwards). I believe that most people probably believe that they are better off in a society that attempts, through its laws and culture, to have a large middle class. Give the majority of the people in a given society a stake in the system -- chances are they will attempt to be cooperative citizens instead of criminals.

Societies that tend to do that are safer and more comfortable to live in than societies overrun by gangs or warlords. An AH quote from up thread

Antiquehunter said:
I would say broadly that the mineral wealth of Afghanistan is indeed its only hope for economic development, but it is a chicken & egg situation. You can't really do much with the minerals until the place settles down. The place won't settle down until you have economic development.
Click to expand...

It's probably fair to say that more investors are likely to invest in a society that is safe to live and work in than in a country like, say, Afghanistan.

IOW, I don't think the only reason that most people most of the time treat each other fairly is because of a sense of empathy but also because they know that chances are that life will be better for them if they try to carve out a place for themselves in the middle class vs try to be one of the few top dogs in a gang-based culture.

One of the best things a government can do for its citizens, IMHO, is to set up laws and regulations to maximize the number of people that can be a part of the middle-class.

I suspect most people's behavior, including how they choose to treat others, is both internally and externally driven -- but probably more externally driven than most of us would be comfortable thinking about.
 
westprog said:
Yes, for good reason.



Because your characterisation of normal human behaviour as abnormal is critical to your concept of morality.
Click to expand...
It is, murder and killing are not the norm.

I've been in countries where the culture was much more violent. Guess what, everyday people are not out killing and robbing. In fact, things are surprisingly 'normal' everywhere I've been. Even during the civil wars in Central America in the 80s, everyday people were 'normal'.

But if you get your view of the world from watching news reports which focus on the abnormal, you might have a completely different image of what 'normal' people are actually like.

My definition of 'normal' is the everyday person on most days of their lives.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Can you honestly say you don't know if the world would be better off without genocide, racism and war? It's an indeterminable value?
Click to expand...

The "world" would be better off? According to whom? According to what criteria? Is this fighting religion with aggressive, scientifically based vagueness?

You can't say something is better unless you specify the values you are using to make the evaluation.
 
westprog said:
The "world" would be better off? According to whom? According to what criteria? Is this fighting religion with aggressive, scientifically based vagueness?

You can't say something is better unless you specify the values you are using to make the evaluation.
Click to expand...
Yes I can say that and so could you if you weren't still supporting your 'morals-are-special' position.

Most human brains finds war, genocide and racism are negative things. They certainly lead to negative outcomes, including severe consequences for the victors or the dominant ethnic group. You might be able to argue that it's natural we form 'us and them' groups. But who wants to lose tens of thousands of one's people in a war even if you ultimately win?
 
Are there any Pakistanis who read this forum who would like to comment? Might be of interest.
 
Craig4 said:
Which is fine. Some cultures are better than others. There's no problem with cultural imperialism when it is aimed at altering an inferior cultural construct.
Click to expand...
With that in mind, I suppose you would have no problem with some Salafists dropping into your locale and imposing Sharia Law. Ya see, the believe you are living in an inferior cultural construct .. :cool:

westprog said:
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?
Click to expand...
Aye, therein lies the rub.

For AntiqueHunter: what you described as happening to third party nationals in various construction projects doesn't just happen in Afghanistan. I've seen it in a few other places as well. :mad:
 
Darth Rotor said:
With that in mind, I suppose you would have no problem with some Salafists dropping into your locale and imposing Sharia Law. Ya see, the believe you are living in an inferior cultural construct .. :cool:


Aye, therein lies the rub.

For AntiqueHunter: what you described as happening to third party nationals in various construction projects doesn't just happen in Afghanistan. I've seen it in a few other places as well. :mad:
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of belief if you're using objective criteria.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Yes I can say that and so could you if you weren't still supporting your 'morals-are-special' position.
Click to expand...

You seem to be going down a blind alley which is based on a wish to have all the benefits of morality without having a religious basis. You can't get it just by wishin'.

Most human brains finds war, genocide and racism are negative things.
Click to expand...

Which is why war, genocide and racism are unknown in human history. Oh, wait.

Most human beings think it's a bad thing when the consequences of war, genocide and racism happen to them.

They certainly lead to negative outcomes, including severe consequences for the victors or the dominant ethnic group. You might be able to argue that it's natural we form 'us and them' groups. But who wants to lose tens of thousands of one's people in a war even if you ultimately win?
Click to expand...

Well, clearly, lots of people do. Most of the people posting here are in a fortunate, better off position because of war, racism and genocide, applied by their ancestors to somebody else.
 
westprog said:
You seem to be going down a blind alley which is based on a wish to have all the benefits of morality without having a religious basis. You can't get it just by wishin'.
Click to expand...
And here we get to the core of the matter. You can't let go of god. The 'you don't need god to be moral' thread is that away->->->->

If one of your rationalizations for why there must be a god is to give humans rules then you don't want to find out no gods have anything to do with the rules. Biology and evolution on the other hand, do.


westprog said:
Which is why war, genocide and racism are unknown in human history. Oh, wait.

Most human beings think it's a bad thing when the consequences of war, genocide and racism happen to them.

Well, clearly, lots of people do. Most of the people posting here are in a fortunate, better off position because of war, racism and genocide, applied by their ancestors to somebody else.
Click to expand...
I don't get your point. Most people don't want war and????
 
westprog said:
How do you pick your objective criteria, except with subjective criteria?
Click to expand...

Not at all. We have lots of data on people's satisfaction, human fulfillment, outlook (positive or negative). There's a whole range of indicators. It's not subjective to say that (and I'm making the numbers up here) that 75 percent of girls and 40 percent of boys feel afraid of being murdered by their parents for an honor killing. We can now study the impact of those (clearly not unfounded fears) on their impact on family life, education, social function. The impact of this social construct (honor killings) is clearly negative and cultures with out it are preferable to those with. That's about as subjective as determining the difference between apple pie and cyanide.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And here we get to the core of the matter. You can't let go of god. The 'you don't need god to be moral' thread is that away->->->->

If one of your rationalizations for why there must be a god is to give humans rules then you don't want to find out no gods have anything to do with the rules. Biology and evolution on the other hand, do.
Click to expand...


The only person talking about god and pixies and fairy dust is you. I haven't brought it up. You can't keep running back to god every time your arguments fail. You can't base your whole premise around religion. If you have a scientific basis for your claim of an objective morality, then you should be able to justify it in scientific terms. I don't see god mentioned in biological texts - and if I did, that would be a strong indication that I was departing science and entering polemic.

I don't get your point. Most people don't want war and????
Click to expand...

You may or may not have noticed. Wars happen. Hence somebody wants them, pious platitudes notwithstanding.
 
Craig4 said:
Not at all. We have lots of data on people's satisfaction, human fulfillment, outlook (positive or negative). There's a whole range of indicators. It's not subjective to say that (and I'm making the numbers up here) that 75 percent of girls and 40 percent of boys feel afraid of being murdered by their parents for an honor killing. We can now study the impact of those (clearly not unfounded fears) on their impact on family life, education, social function. The impact of this social construct (honor killings) is clearly negative and cultures with out it are preferable to those with. That's about as subjective as determining the difference between apple pie and cyanide.
Click to expand...

However much you analyse the statistics, you won't get anywhere with them unless you start with a set of values with which to evaluate them. Data without values will not lead to any action.
 
Yep, once you have picked your criteria based on which you evaluate human behaviour in moral terms, you can be perfectly objective. But I don't think there is any logical and objective path from observed facts to picking that particular criteria instead of something else. How could such a path be formed? How can someone say, that it is an objective, universally correct thing to pick happiness or. say, evolutionary success to be the measure of morality? Even though you can well observe and measure both happiness and evolutionary success or the lack of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom