Honor killing in Pakistan

[Antiquehunter]

Countries often take a multi-prong approach towards solving problems.

For example in the USA gun owners have to be registered and, in many cities, people under 18 are not allowed to purchase spray paint (to help deal with the graffiti problem, a far more minor problem but still serves as an example).

Gun registration and prohibiting minors from purchasing spray paint are not the only tactics taken of course.

I'm just being practical, Kaylee. This is a country where they refine Opium into Heroin, which uses all sorts of chemistry (probably some caustic acids). The reagents are prohibited imports, officially, yet the activity continues. Alcohol is 'banned' in Afghanistan, but lots of Afghans drink - and not just stuff that comes from the Westerners - booze flows into Afghanistan via their Uzbek/Tajik neighbours, in quantity.

I'm all for regulation / 'banning' where that is the most expedient and practical way to accomplish the result. I don't think attempting to regulate the sale / import of substances will have any impact. Even if someone couldn't throw acid on schoolgirls, I suspect if they are so inclined, they will find some other way to attack/disfigure them.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Countries pass laws for different reasons all the time, not just ethics. Just one example, in many western countries children are required to go to school.

Nations affect each other all the time. I've no qualms about interfering with cultures that are greenhouses for terrorism.

Well, that was a quick turnaround. Well-meaning humanitarian to cultural imperialist in, what, three posts?

Moreover, what do you think made these countries into greenhouses for terrorism in the first place? We're only there because they slipped off the leash.

I do hope SatansMaleVocalChoir is still around. There's some interesting parallels here to the discussion he and I had a few pages ago, only the roles have been inverted.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Well-meaning humanitarian to cultural imperialist in, what, three posts?

It is a difficult question, that really can't be addressed in a black & white sense.

Pretend that we discover a tribe of people living in remote part of South America, previously undiscovered. They have a rich culture of song, dance, art & communication that appears to have strong ties back to ancient peoples. They are an anthropological treasure.

They also happen to engage in human sacrifice.

So - here is an example where to my mind, we can work to preserve that which is so unique & special to these people, while moving them forward / preventing a practice which contemporary socities deem to be unacceptable & illegal. Its not cultural imperialism per se, but it is exerting external values on another society.

The parallels to Afghanistan are not dissimilar. Your culture(s) are absolutely respected and valued. However we expect you to behave responsibly and within the limits of sensibility & good taste.

 

[Kaylee]

Well, that was a quick turnaround. Well-meaning humanitarian to cultural imperialist in, what, three posts?

Moreover, what do you think made these countries into greenhouses for terrorism in the first place? We're only there because they slipped off the leash.

I do hope SatansMaleVocalChoir is still around. There's some interesting parallels here to the discussion he and I had a few pages ago, only the roles have been inverted.

I reject your definition of cultural imperialism.

There really is no such thing as being neutral. It's impossible to trade without enriching someone, often at the expense of someone else.

As discussed before -- my boundary lines as to when should I start caring are when my actions (or my country's actions) affect the freedom of others to make choices. Or when my actions or my country's actions enriches the people who actively restrict the freedom of others to make choices.

That's why for me honor killings, forced marriages and prostitution, and involuntary servitude are issues that I care about.

Whether someone:

* chooses to pray 5 times a day or once a week or not at all,
* thinks artwork should or shouldn't include human figures
* prefers some types of spices over others in their food,

etc.

I couldn't care less.

 

[Kaylee]

I'm just being practical, Kaylee. This is a country where they refine Opium into Heroin, which uses all sorts of chemistry (probably some caustic acids). The reagents are prohibited imports, officially, yet the activity continues. Alcohol is 'banned' in Afghanistan, but lots of Afghans drink - and not just stuff that comes from the Westerners - booze flows into Afghanistan via their Uzbek/Tajik neighbours, in quantity.

I'm all for regulation / 'banning' where that is the most expedient and practical way to accomplish the result. I don't think attempting to regulate the sale / import of substances will have any impact. Even if someone couldn't throw acid on schoolgirls, I suspect if they are so inclined, they will find some other way to attack/disfigure them.

Points taken.

FWIW, I still think it might be worth it to have some regulations in regard to acids on the books. For example, if one doesn't need acids for their business, it could be made illegal to own. Then if a woman said she was being threatened, possession of any acids in the alleged suspect's possession could be considered evidence.

I do realize that its a big problem and that there is no easy solution.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Points taken.

FWIW, I still think it might be worth it to have some regulations in regard to acids on the books. For example, if one doesn't need acids for their business, it could be made illegal to own. Then if a woman said she was being threatened, possession of any acids in the alleged suspect's possession could be considered evidence.

I do realize that its a big problem and that there is no easy solution.

Considering this is going on in parts of the country that don't really have any effective police force, I think exposure to world 'cultural' opinion may be the thing that has more effect. Look at the outpouring of support for Malala Yousufzai. It seems like it has the promise of having an effect.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Speaking of Malala, could someone do a quick Google search and tell me if you have screen freeze? I can search for other things on Google but this search is not working.

Bing search works. It's most odd.

This is weird. I tried malaria, no problem, but once I type in Malala Google freezes.

If I type in "google freezing malala search" I get a normal Malala search return.

I deleted "google freezing" and just tried "malala search" and the screen froze.

I started a thread on this, it's so odd.

 

[Kaylee]

deleted -- responded in SG new thread.

 

[westprog]

When it comes to sociology and other demographic studies, what else can we use besides associations?

Just because it's soft science doesn't mean that it's not science. Causality still has to be demonstrated.

 

[Kaylee]

Just because it's soft science doesn't mean that it's not science. Causality still has to be demonstrated.

I agree, but for the soft sciences isn't that usually done with large statistical surveys and studies? Especially for anything that concerns humans because for ethical reasons there are limits on how we can study individuals.

 

[westprog]

Both you and westprog are misunderstanding my position.

Let me try again. We start with an established moral framework.

That framework includes a preset inhibition to kill other humans. Defective people I'm referring to would be sociopaths and psychopaths. For others who do not start out as sociopaths or psychopaths, people express a range of inhibitions to kill from weak to severe. And nurture can distort that natural inhibition to kill other humans.

You can quibble with my view of what is normal or abnormal. I believe I noted even psychiatrists cannot agree on where on the continuum the dividing line should be.

My only goalpost (the one you think is moving but isn't) is that people have a natural inhibition to kill other humans. If one is born without that inhibition that person is defective.

I find it odd anyone would be arguing that guilt free killing is the norm for some humans and doesn't represent a defective person. Getting back to the OP, do you think those parents were 'normal'?

Exactly what is normal and abnormal can be debated - but sociopathy and psychopathy are conditions which can readily be diagnosed. It's quite clear that most of the killings throughout history were not carried out by a deviant minority. They were accepted as normal by the entire society. That continues to be the case. Note how many people on this actual thread are supporting the idea of killing people they consider to deserve it. They obviously don't have a built in repugnance to the idea.

I don't know where "guilt-free" comes in. Is killing+remorse considered more moral?

The conflict between nature and nurture is a red herring. It may well be possible to create a society where with conditions of plenty, nobody kills anyone. However, it seems implausible that in a society with competition for resources necessary for survival, the capacity to fight and take food and water from strangers to feed ones family would be considered abnormal and unusual.

There are plenty of behaviours that are rare because the opportunities to exhibit them don't come up very often. For most of us, whether or not to kill someone to feed our starving children is not a decision we have to make.

There are other behaviours which are unusual, and which we don't often see performed. Running into a burning building to save somebody from death is very unusual, and possibly only a small minority of people would do such a thing. Do we therefore characterise such behaviour as immoral?

There are a range of human behaviours which are altruistic, and a range of behaviours which are not. Neither is privileged. We can't decide what we should do just by observing what human beings actually do. They do a lot of stuff. If they didn't, we wouldn't need moral codes to tell us not to do it.

 

[westprog]

I agree, but for the soft sciences isn't that usually done with large statistical surveys and studies? Especially for anything that concerns humans because for ethical reasons there are limits on how we can study individuals.

But enormous care has to be exerted to avoid confusing correlation with cause. For example - if polygamy is merely a symptom of the status of women within a society, enforcing monagamy will not necessarily improve the lot of women. It might simply leave all the women previously dependent on the goodwill of a rich husband as being effectively destitute. I don't say that that is necessarily the case - but that it might be if only correlation is established.

 

[Kaylee]

But enormous care has to be exerted to avoid confusing correlation with cause. For example - if polygamy is merely a symptom of the status of women within a society, enforcing monagamy will not necessarily improve the lot of women. It might simply leave all the women previously dependent on the goodwill of a rich husband as being effectively destitute. I don't say that that is necessarily the case - but that it might be if only correlation is established.

I think that is why when we have different populations like American Mormons that observe monogamy, American Mormons that allow polygyny, and various groups of people that observe Islam and are from Cultures in the Mideast --- some that are polygynous and some that are mongamous, some living in the Mideast and some living in communities outside of the Mideast such as the suburbs of Paris, France or Detroit, Michigan this gives us an opportunity to do large scale population studies and draw conclusions.

It is possible that my conclusions may not be correct however, I did the best I could with limited resources. FWIW, based on what I have read and observed, unless someone can convince me otherwise I would not be in favor of changing the laws in the USA to allow polygyny.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly what is normal and abnormal can be debated - but sociopathy and psychopathy are conditions which can readily be diagnosed. It's quite clear that most of the killings throughout history were not carried out by a deviant minority. They were accepted as normal by the entire society. That continues to be the case. Note how many people on this actual thread are supporting the idea of killing people they consider to deserve it. They obviously don't have a built in repugnance to the idea.

Again, you take what I've said and distorted it. I've not said anything about the majority of killing being X or Y, only that people have an innate reluctance to kill other humans. I've said the degree to which this reluctance exists varies from slight to severe. You keep wanting to change this to some kind of inborn absolute prohibition to killing and that's not what I'm describing.

I don't know where "guilt-free" comes in. Is killing+remorse considered more moral?

How is 'more moral' or 'less moral' relevant? The point is, if one has an innate reluctance to kill and circumstances force or result in killing, remorse is an expected aftermath.

The conflict between nature and nurture is a red herring.

Only if you have no clue what I am saying.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It is a difficult question, that really can't be addressed in a black & white sense.

Pretend that we discover a tribe of people living in remote part of South America, previously undiscovered. They have a rich culture of song, dance, art & communication that appears to have strong ties back to ancient peoples. They are an anthropological treasure.

They also happen to engage in human sacrifice.

So - here is an example where to my mind, we can work to preserve that which is so unique & special to these people, while moving them forward / preventing a practice which contemporary socities deem to be unacceptable & illegal. Its not cultural imperialism per se, but it is exerting external values on another society.

The parallels to Afghanistan are not dissimilar. Your culture(s) are absolutely respected and valued. However we expect you to behave responsibly and within the limits of sensibility & good taste.

Well, we're all pretty close to each other in approach.

In Afghanistan's case, Kaylee's supporting the additional step of outlawing cultural practices merely associated with the abuses we want to see changed.

With the Amazon tribe I believe I'm actually a step behind you - as long as they understand that outsiders are off limits, and don't interact much with the rest of the world besides humoring the occasional anthropologist, I'm fine with letting them get on with it. Should they begin to send raiding parties to loot nearby towns/farmers/tourists, however, then we have a problem for which action is justified.

 

[Kaylee]

It is a difficult question, that really can't be addressed in a black & white sense.

Pretend that we discover a tribe of people living in remote part of South America, previously undiscovered. They have a rich culture of song, dance, art & communication that appears to have strong ties back to ancient peoples. They are an anthropological treasure.

They also happen to engage in human sacrifice.

So - here is an example where to my mind, we can work to preserve that which is so unique & special to these people, while moving them forward / preventing a practice which contemporary socities deem to be unacceptable & illegal. Its not cultural imperialism per se, but it is exerting external values on another society.

The parallels to Afghanistan are not dissimilar. Your culture(s) are absolutely respected and valued. However we expect you to behave responsibly and within the limits of sensibility & good taste.

Well, we're all pretty close to each other in approach.

In Afghanistan's case, Kaylee's supporting the additional step of outlawing cultural practices merely associated with the abuses we want to see changed.

With the Amazon tribe I believe I'm actually a step behind you - as long as they understand that outsiders are off limits, and don't interact much with the rest of the world besides humoring the occasional anthropologist, I'm fine with letting them get on with it. Should they begin to send raiding parties to loot nearby towns/farmers/tourists, however, then we have a problem for which action is justified.

To make the analogy more comparable to what is going on in Afghanistan, I'll add some more details.

The people living in this remote area of South America are actually members of different tribes and are not in agreement about some of the customs. The members of the caste that is suppose to be the source for the human sacrifices don’t all agree that they should be sacrificed. One tribe (about 40% of the population) has many warlords that are particularly insistent on carrying out this custom and uses many heavy-handed tactics to make sure that they get their way. That includes murder, amputation, acid attacks, kidnapping, selling members of the other tribes into slavery, etc.

There are rare minerals in this part of South Africa and many outsiders have been interested in getting access to them. To increase the odds that they will get access at favorable terms they have each taken turns putting various leaders from the various tribes into power and giving them lots of money.

It's unlikely that the current tribe and their warlords would be in power if it weren’t for this interference.

Some outsiders think that they should establish and fund NGOs to help members of the caste that don't want to be sacrificed. Some outsiders even think that should do what they can to ban human sacrifices altogether.

Others say it's entirely the South American tribes business and to stay out of it, without acknowledging that outsiders have already heavily impacted the power structures and dynamics of the South American tribes for over 2300 years. (Yes, I'm changing the story a little bit to make it more comparable to the Afghanistan situation.) ETA: If outsiders were truly to have no impact in the tribes politics and dynamics, that would include having no trade or investment in the area either.

 

[Belz...]

I said we are born (with the exception of some people who are born with some brain defects) with an inhibition to kill other human beings.

And you have yet to demonstrate that.

People have been killing each other since before civilisation, for reasons as varied as one can imagine. The evidence doesn't seem to indicate that people who kill are defective.

Perhaps you misunderstood my post.

Yeah, because it can't possibly be the other way around.

I asked you what was your position, I didn't say there were no others.

You didn't ask anything. Your post was an affirmation, not a question. Why did you even post such a ridiculous strawman, then ?

Let me try again. We start with an established moral framework.

Let me stop you there. No, we don't.

I find it odd anyone would be arguing that guilt free killing is the norm for some humans and doesn't represent a defective person.

Well, there goes that strawman, moving those goalposts, again.

 

[Belz...]

There are plenty of behaviours that are rare because the opportunities to exhibit them don't come up very often. For most of us, whether or not to kill someone to feed our starving children is not a decision we have to make.

Right. I think Ginger's position is strongly influenced by the fact that killing each other has become _very_ outside the norm in modern society, but is ignoring that it's not quite that abnormal in other contexts.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I posted a study documenting a genetic effect on moral decisions. You ignored it.

Yes, because it does not support your assertion that we are born with 'an established moral framework'.

And you have also not backed up your assertion that soldiers overcome the inhibition to kill by seeing the enemy as 'less than human'.

Just because we are born with legs does not mean we are capable of walking from birth - we have to learn how to use them.

Just because we are born with brains, does not mean we are born with morals - we have to learn those as well; certain societies have different morals from others.

Are women who have abortions mentally defective?

 

[westprog]

Right. I think Ginger's position is strongly influenced by the fact that killing each other has become _very_ outside the norm in modern society, but is ignoring that it's not quite that abnormal in other contexts.

There are plenty of behaviours that come either built-in or learned which are only triggered under exceptional circumstances. We have reflexes that apply when we're drowning, or losing a lot of blood, or when we've suffered a severe shock. These things would typically kick in very rarely, but they are inherent in all normal human beings. The ability to cope with the unusual is an essential survival characteristic.

The SG position is somewhat difficult to pin down. If the claim is that so-called moral behaviour is explicable in biological terms, then there's very little to it. Even the claim that such behaviour has a genetic basis is difficult to dispute. The strong claim is that it is possible to derive a moral "ought" from examining the biological "is". Such evidence as has been adduced is all in support of the weak claim, yet presented as if it were some kind of support for the strong.