Honor killing in Pakistan

[Skeptic Ginger]

The only person talking about god and pixies and fairy dust is you. I haven't brought it up.

Riiight.

a wish to have all the benefits of morality without having a religious basis. You can't get it just by wishin'.

What's that about then?

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.

You have it backwards. I am talking about science. As soon as you figure out 'morality' is not special, it becomes just as much about the natural Universe as the things you call objective.

The problem is, as long as we disagree on the issue of morality being special or not special, there's not much to discuss.

You're talking apples and I'm talking oranges.

 

[Kumar]

"The concept of phenotypic plasticity describes the degree to which an organism's phenotype is determined by its genotype. A high level of plasticity means that environmental factors have a strong influence on the particular phenotype that develops. If there is little plasticity, the phenotype of an organism can be reliably predicted from knowledge of the genotype, regardless of environmental peculiarities during development."

 

[Belz...]

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

Your dichotomy is saying 1) that humans are nice to start with and have to be programmed to kill and 2) that "without a law or religious rule against killing people would have no reluctance to kill", which is a strawman. I find it odd that you can't see any other option.

we do not have blank moral slates at birth

You're moving the goalposts, now. That's not what you said originally. You said that humans must ignore their instincts in other to kill, which is ridiculous, and you implied that those who don't need to are defective, which you later said you didn't mean. Now you say we're not blank moral slates at birth, something no sane person could disagree with.

 

[Belz...]

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.

For once, Westprog, I am in complete agreement with you.

 

[Belz...]

It is, murder and killing are not the norm.

Irrelevant to the debate.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

So Skeptic Ginger has still posted nothing that supports this:

The majority of evolved human brains. In case you hadn't noticed, morality is a function of the human brain and it evolved so that most of us are born with certain preset values. Some people have defective moral sections of their brains just as some people have no joy and we diagnose that as a mental illness. In fact, people with specific kinds of brain damage demonstrate what happens when the moral part of one's brain is damaged.

Particularly the hilited part...

 

[westprog]

Riiight. What's that about then?

It's a response to your insistence that either people accept your version of morality, which just happens to correspond to the religious version in essential respects but is supposedly science based

You have it backwards. I am talking about science. As soon as you figure out 'morality' is not special, it becomes just as much about the natural Universe as the things you call objective.

The problem is, as long as we disagree on the issue of morality being special or not special, there's not much to discuss.

You're talking apples and I'm talking oranges.

What does "special" even mean? How can we discuss whether morality is a scientifically coherent subject when the discussion is being phrased in terms which have no particular scientific meaning - or indeed, any particular meaning that I can figure out.

A theory of morality based on personal experience with most people you happen to know forming some kind of well-meaning western liberal consensus on what would be nice is about as far from scientific rigour as I can imagine.

 

[westprog]

For once, Westprog, I am in complete agreement with you.

Blimey. I'm worried now, and so should you be.

 

[TimCallahan]

Regardless of whether or not we are born with this or that capacity for empathy, violence or whatever, honor killing is so egregiously vile that we hardly need to debate the issue based on what our innate capacities might or might not be. The issue of whether or not we should impose our values on other cultures is likewise trivial in the face of the objective reality of these atrocities.

This leaves us with two issues. First, how do we stop the spread of honor killings in our own societies when people from cultures that practice honor killing immigrate to North America or Europe? Second, given that an attempt to impose a ban on honor killing by force will only provoke an antagonistic response, how do we influence various benighted societies to end this horrific practice?

As to the first question, I would suggest brutal suppression as a response of outsiders coming into our society and bringing with them their barbaric practices. At the risk of sounding barbaric myself, I would favor an automatic death penalty for perpetrators of honor killings and automatic deportation of that surviving family members. These should act as effective deterrents.

 

[Craig4]

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.

Okay, we know people who are not depressed are mentally healthier than people who are depressed. We have objective standards (see the DSM) to determine when a person is depressed. There is nothing subjective about the clinical assessment of the medical condition of depression. Why then does it suddenly become subjective when we apply objective criteria to social health?

 

[westprog]

Okay, we know people who are not depressed are mentally healthier than people who are depressed. We have objective standards (see the DSM) to determine when a person is depressed. There is nothing subjective about the clinical assessment of the medical condition of depression. Why then does it suddenly become subjective when we apply objective criteria to social health?

One can be perfectly objective in determining that one person can be described as depressed, and another is not. Where one becomes subjective is in deciding whether it's a good or bad thing to be depressed.

Saying that being depressed is bad is not particularly controversial, but it's still a value judgement. Being able to tell the difference between objective statements of fact - X is depressed, because he has the following symptoms - and subjective ideas - X is depressed, and therefore should take Prosac.

 

[Belz...]

Regardless of whether or not we are born with this or that capacity for empathy, violence or whatever, honor killing is so egregiously vile that we hardly need to debate the issue based on what our innate capacities might or might not be.

I think we all agree. The original dispute was sparked by an innocuous comment to the fact that understanding the cause of honour killings may yield a better opinion than knee-jerk emotional reactions to it. Another comment was that forcing our morals on other cultures has been, historically, problematic.

Of course, to some posters, saying either of those is tantamount to supporting honour killings.

 

[Belz...]

One can be perfectly objective in determining that one person can be described as depressed, and another is not. Where one becomes subjective is in deciding whether it's a good or bad thing to be depressed.

Mind you, if we agree on some metric of "goodness", like reported happiness, standard of living, health issues, etc., we'd have at least some modicrum of objectivity.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

As to the first question, I would suggest brutal suppression as a response of outsiders coming into our society and bringing with them their barbaric practices. At the risk of sounding barbaric myself, I would favor an automatic death penalty for perpetrators of honor killings and automatic deportation of that surviving family members. These should act as effective deterrents.

Nah, we already have a few centuries of adding increasingly ridiculous sentences in the hopes that people who aren't thinking clearly will lower their weapon in the midst of their murderous rage and think, "well, gosh, am I going to ruin my life here?" It won't work now either, no matter how barbaric you become. All it will do is make decent people your enemy as well.

We know how to handle this. Take the laws we have, and enforce them rigorously. When a crime like this is covered up, charge the conspirators as accessories. Tell the cops to turn off the CCTVs, put down the kettles and do their damned jobs for a change. Dig out the infection, don't just amputate on a whim.

 

[westprog]

Mind you, if we agree on some metric of "goodness", like reported happiness, standard of living, health issues, etc., we'd have at least some modicrum of objectivity.

Of course, but we'd need to accept that someone else can plug in their own metric and it would be just as valid.

 

[Antiquehunter]

<snip>
This leaves us with two issues. First, how do we stop the spread of honor killings in our own societies when people from cultures that practice honor killing immigrate to North America or Europe? Second, given that an attempt to impose a ban on honor killing by force will only provoke an antagonistic response, how do we influence various benighted societies to end this horrific practice?

As to the first question, I would suggest brutal suppression as a response of outsiders coming into our society and bringing with them their barbaric practices. At the risk of sounding barbaric myself, I would favor an automatic death penalty for perpetrators of honor killings and automatic deportation of that surviving family members. These should act as effective deterrents.

I don't see it Tim, in quite the same light. Honor killing is horrific, vile, repugnant, and should never happen. It also is murder. Plain and simple, murder. So on topic #1 - we already have deterrents in place in Western cultures that are supposed to deter murder. They work to an extent, yet people get murdered in Western cultures. I don't see any need for Western cultures to lend special status to the practice of honor killing - it is no more or less vile than gangs shooting each other, crimes of passion, or Hannibal the Cannibal. If you want to stop 'honor' killings in Western countries, you should look no further than how those countries deal with murder.

On #2 - In societies where honor killing is practiced to whatever extent, I believe you will find that those societies are so broken / flawed on a variety of levels, that you are addressing merely the symptom of the problem & not the cause by focussing on 'honor killing'. I wouldn't suggest for example, that Pakistan's sole social issue today is that sometimes women are killed for barbaric reasons of 'honor'. Should the West be interested on 'fixing' countries? That is a bigger question. In general, I say yes, and no, we shouldn't offer the practice of honor killing some sort of protected status as being culturally significant. Preserving languages, traditions, dances, art - these are valuable things. We don't need to preserve atrocity.

On the recommendations you make, many Western cultures already have the death penalty as a deterrent for murder, and yet those cultures still experience murder - of all varieties. I don't see any evidence that having the death penalty as a deterrent will have any effect on honor killing specifically as a subset of murders, nor do I think we SHOULD be trying to punish honor killing any differently than another form of murder.

As far as deportation of family members, this too I believe, would be no more effective that what we have today. For example, if an Afghan husband, wife & child were to come to Canada, and the man killed his wife - if they were Canadian citizens, they would be treated as such (ie - the child would not be deported.) If they were landed immigrants, or refugee claimants, then the husband would be deported immediately upon completion of his sentence for murder. As for the kid - presumably it would go into protective services, fostered. I don't know enough about Canadian immigration law to know if it would get deported - but really, the kid didn't commit a crime. If 20 years in jail and deportation wasn't sufficient deterrent to stop the murder, not sure why deportation of the kid would all of a sudden sway the decision.

 

[TimCallahan]

I don't see it Tim, in quite the same light. Honor killing is horrific, vile, repugnant, and should never happen. It also is murder. Plain and simple, murder. So on topic #1 - we already have deterrents in place in Western cultures that are supposed to deter murder. They work to an extent, yet people get murdered in Western cultures. I don't see any need for Western cultures to lend special status to the practice of honor killing - it is no more or less vile than gangs shooting each other, crimes of passion, or Hannibal the Cannibal. If you want to stop 'honor' killings in Western countries, you should look no further than how those countries deal with murder.

Okay, granted: I was venting my spleen a bit.

On #2 - In societies where honor killing is practiced to whatever extent, I believe you will find that those societies are so broken / flawed on a variety of levels, that you are addressing merely the symptom of the problem & not the cause by focussing on 'honor killing'. I wouldn't suggest for example, that Pakistan's sole social issue today is that sometimes women are killed for barbaric reasons of 'honor'. Should the West be interested on 'fixing' countries? That is a bigger question. In general, I say yes, and no, we shouldn't offer the practice of honor killing some sort of protected status as being culturally significant. Preserving languages, traditions, dances, art - these are valuable things. We don't need to preserve atrocity.

Since you've been to Afghanistan, what practical solutions can your offer? I note that, while many Afghans are leaning toward the Taliban once more, they do remember the Taliban's ban on music. I also recall that when American forces liberated Kabul and Kandahar people celebrated by doing things such as listening to radios and flying kites - both of which were prohibited by the Taliban. Is there any way we can leave behind any values such as educating girls (I recall sometime back when some Afghan threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls) and not subjecting women to house arrest?

On the recommendations you make, many Western cultures already have the death penalty as a deterrent for murder, and yet those cultures still experience murder - of all varieties. I don't see any evidence that having the death penalty as a deterrent will have any effect on honor killing specifically as a subset of murders, nor do I think we SHOULD be trying to punish honor killing any differently than another form of murder.

As far as deportation of family members, this too I believe, would be no more effective that what we have today. For example, if an Afghan husband, wife & child were to come to Canada, and the man killed his wife - if they were Canadian citizens, they would be treated as such (ie - the child would not be deported.) If they were landed immigrants, or refugee claimants, then the husband would be deported immediately upon completion of his sentence for murder. As for the kid - presumably it would go into protective services, fostered. I don't know enough about Canadian immigration law to know if it would get deported - but really, the kid didn't commit a crime. If 20 years in jail and deportation wasn't sufficient deterrent to stop the murder, not sure why deportation of the kid would all of a sudden sway the decision.

See my first comment.

 

[Kaylee]

Regardless of whether or not we are born with this or that capacity for empathy, violence or whatever, honor killing is so egregiously vile that we hardly need to debate the issue based on what our innate capacities might or might not be. The issue of whether or not we should impose our values on other cultures is likewise trivial in the face of the objective reality of these atrocities.

This leaves us with two issues. First, how do we stop the spread of honor killings in our own societies when people from cultures that practice honor killing immigrate to North America or Europe? Second, given that an attempt to impose a ban on honor killing by force will only provoke an antagonistic response, how do we influence various benighted societies to end this horrific practice?

As to the first question, I would suggest brutal suppression as a response of outsiders coming into our society and bringing with them their barbaric practices. At the risk of sounding barbaric myself, I would favor an automatic death penalty for perpetrators of honor killings and automatic deportation of that surviving family members. These should act as effective deterrents.

TC, re the first question, I agree except for the automatic deportation of surviving family members. If they were accomplices -- I think they should be punished. If they were not -- I think they should be allowed to stay.

As for the second question -- I think the women in the countries where honor killings are common should be given as many options as possible.

I agree with AH's idea of linking foreign aid with conditions. One condition I would push for is to allow NGOs to operate safe houses with no interference.

I gather that in countries where honor killing is common the family is judge, jury and executioner. If this is in fact the country's law and not just the custom, I would change the law to institute separate court and law enforcement systems to be in effect for not just family law but all criminal and civil law.

Don't help set up theocracies -- require separation of church/mosque and state in the laws.

Require these countries to allow in missionaries, to allow their citizens to convert to other religions and for both missionaries and converts to be given protection.

(I was told by a former co-worker from Bengal, that the biggest damage to the caste system came from the missionaries who converted members fom the lower casts. )

Allow women to get divorced without permission from their husbands.

Ban polygyny.

Ban engagements and marriages to children.

Ban forced marriages.

Respect the legal rights and safety of all people working in the country -- including empolyees from thirld world countries in construction, mining projects and private households. Actually make illegal servitude ... illegal.

Improving all people's rights would help improve women's rights as well, and vice versa.

To enforce this, foreign businesses operating mines and construction projects should be required to have their premises and some of their records open to 3rd party observers.

I know that some of my suggestions would present a radical change and would be very controversial. But I think it would help a few people immediately and help the majority of the population within a 100 years. I'm not aware of any real historical change that has taken less than two generations, usually more. I'm also not aware of any people getting their rights significantly improved without at least a little blood shed.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Since you've been to Afghanistan, what practical solutions can your offer? I note that, while many Afghans are leaning toward the Taliban once more, they do remember the Taliban's ban on music. I also recall that when American forces liberated Kabul and Kandahar people celebrated by doing things such as listening to radios and flying kites - both of which were prohibited by the Taliban. Is there any way we can leave behind any values such as educating girls (I recall sometime back when some Afghan threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls) and not subjecting women to house arrest?

Its a very difficult situation, Tim. As I intimated in earlier posts, I am not very hopeful for the future of the country post-drawdown. While the West has definitely made progress and improved the situation for Afghans, specifically women, over the past 10 or so years of involvement, I don't think that progress is going to stick. I think that the cost of these meagre gains, both in terms of human lives lost & financial impacts, does not justify the expense.

If I could offer solutions that worked, consistently, I would not merely be a development consultant, I would be a Nobel laureate.

In a nutshell, I would offer the following: (which apply not only to Afghanistan, but pretty much any post-conflict environment.)

- Economic development & poverty reduction produce an overall climate where extremists find it more difficult to operate. Get someone hooked on Indian bollywood movies, blue jeans & make sure they are fed, and lo and behold, they may stop committing atrocities. Private sector development, education, and building a climate supportive of small/medium business help to achieve these goals.

- A committment to legal reform. Making sure that a country's laws are well-enough written to be enforced, making sure the judicial system is efficient and not corrupt, and a well-trained and well-paid police force to support enforcement.

- Basic infrastructure. In rural areas, this means irrigation, and where possible/relevant, access to electricity & technology to support a shift from subsistence livelihoods to market farming. In urban areas, this means sewage and waste removal, hospitals, roads - the fundamentals of what people need to move forward.

I personally feel that the ideas that support horrible notions like honor killing, fester in places where poverty & hopelessness reign. Give people the basics, and it takes away some of the ability of the terrorist / fundamentalist to gain traction.

As an aside - the acid attack is not a once-off incident. That is a frighteningly regular form of terror used in Afghanistan. I would have to go through my security reports, but I would say that reported assaults with acid on women/schoolgirls occurs probably monthly. Add in unreported assaults, and you get the picture. I can't comment if there has been a significant reduction between 2010-2012. But when I left, while there were probably fewer such incidents as compared with prior years, there were still far too many.

 

[TimCallahan]

TC, re the first question, I agree except for the automatic deportation of surviving family members. If they were accomplices -- I think they should be punished. If they were not -- I think they should be allowed to stay.

As for the second question -- I think the women in the countries where honor killings are common should be given as many options as possible.

I agree with AH's idea of linking foreign aid with conditions. One condition I would push for is to allow NGOs to operate safe houses with no interference.

I gather that in countries where honor killing is common the family is judge, jury and executioner. If this is in fact the country's law and not just the custom, I would change the law to institute separate court and law enforcement systems to be in effect for not just family law but all criminal and civil law.

Don't help set up theocracies -- require separation of church/mosque and state in the laws.

Require these countries to allow in missionaries, to allow their citizens to convert to other religions and for both missionaries and converts to be given protection.

(I was told by a former co-worker from Bengal, that the biggest damage to the caste system came from the missionaries who converted members fom the lower casts. )

Allow women to get divorced without permission from their husbands.

Ban polygyny.

Ban engagements and marriages to children.

Ban forced marriages.

Respect the legal rights and safety of all people working in the country -- including empolyees from thirld world countries in construction, mining projects and private households. Actually make illegal servitude ... illegal.

Improving all people's rights would help improve women's rights as well, and vice versa.

To enforce this, foreign businesses operating mines and construction projects should be required to have their premises and some of their records open to 3rd party observers.

I know that some of my suggestions would present a radical change and would be very controversial. But I think it would help a few people immediately and help the majority of the population within a 100 years. I'm not aware of any real historical change that has taken less than two generations, usually more. I'm also not aware of any people getting their rights significantly improved without at least a little blood shed.

Certainly, we could demand conditions for foreign aid. I'm not sure to what degree we can impose radical changes on them, such as allowing missionaries in. That might be too much like imposing change by force.