Honor killing in Pakistan

[westprog]

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.

We have an innate reluctance to do a lot of things. We have an innate reluctance to continue eating when we feel full. We have an innate reluctance to

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.

If you can support that with anthropological research, then perhaps it's true. So what does that lead us to? Do people in human history who've killed end up wishing they hadn't done it? Is there any evidence of this, as a universal principle?

Obviously there's an inhibition against killing when circumstances aren't appropriate. To claim that this makes killing an unnatural process under all circumstances is simply absurd. There's an inhibition on all human activities where the circumstances change, including breathing.

Is there an inhibition against, say, keeping the food to ourselves when the people over the river, who we don't like, are hungry? Is that unusual?

Only if you have no clue what I am saying.

I know exactly what you're saying. I don't know what you might mean by it, but all I have to go on is what is actually being asserted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have already said I don't intend to provide an education for those here insisting they be spoon fed what is current common neurobiology science knowledge. Especially when any of you can Google it and when SMVC dismisses direct genetic evidence as supposedly not evidence "that we are born with 'an established moral framework'." That suggests he doesn't even understand how genes work.

However, I'll post easy to find stuff like this news report on recent research:
We're born to be moral: Babies 'can tell good from evil at six months'

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the view that human beings are born as 'blank slates' - and that our morality is shaped by our experiences.
Instead, they suggest that concepts of good and bad may be hard-wired into the brain at birth....

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: 'A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life....

A number of studies are reported on.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I have already said I don't intend to provide an education for those here insisting they be spoon fed what is current common neurobiology science knowledge. Especially when any of you can Google it and when SMVC dismisses direct genetic evidence as supposedly not evidence "that we are born with 'an established moral framework'." That suggests he doesn't even understand how genes work.

However, I'll post easy to find stuff like this news report on recent research:
We're born to be moral: Babies 'can tell good from evil at six months'A number of studies are reported on.

Unfortunately, what you fail to point out in any of the articles you cite is that they always usually end with a similar caveat as this one, from the link above:

Dr Nadja Reissland, of Durham University, said babies start to learn the difference between good and bad from birth.
'Everything hinges on who decides what is normal,' she said.
'By saying pushing the ball up the hill is helpful, the researchers are making a moral judgement. The babies might just prefer to see things go up rather than down.'

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, it's simply that none of the links you have posted seem to say what you think they're saying.

 

[Belz...]

I have already said I don't intend to provide an education for those here insisting they be spoon fed what is current common neurobiology science knowledge.

Typical M.O. for Skeptic Ginger. It'd be far more interesting if you spent posts doing more than saying this and "you just don't understand my point" over and over.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately, what you fail to point out in any of the articles you cite is that they always usually end with a similar caveat as this one, from the link above:



It's not that we don't understand what you're saying, it's simply that none of the links you have posted seem to say what you think they're saying.

All good studies offer those kinds of limitations. Here's the full quote in context:

Although the studies appear to show that morality is hard-wired into babies' brains, some psychologists urged caution.
Dr Nadja Reissland, of Durham University, said babies start to learn the difference between good and bad from birth.
'Everything hinges on who decides what is normal,' she said.
'By saying pushing the ball up the hill is helpful, the researchers are making a moral judgement. The babies might just prefer to see things go up rather than down.'

But this is not the only study, there are corroborating studies.

Why don't you take the time to look at the research rather than sticking to your confirmation bias?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Typical M.O. for Skeptic Ginger. It'd be far more interesting if you spent posts doing more than saying this and "you just don't understand my point" over and over.

Some things require a person have a thorough background and you can't simply cite a single study.

Educate yourself on the evolution of morality and the evidence of early childhood morality and get back to me.

 

[Brainache]

Some things require a person have a thorough background and you can't simply cite a single study.

Educate yourself on the evolution of morality and the evidence of early childhood morality and get back to me.

This is all a bit of a de-rail though, isn't it? What has the evolution of morality and the evidence of early childhood morality got to do with the fact that some people in some cultures kill their daughters for looking at boys?

Are they not Human? Is it a defect that they share that places a higher value on "Family Honour" than any particular individual life?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is all a bit of a de-rail though, isn't it? What has the evolution of morality and the evidence of early childhood morality got to do with the fact that some people in some cultures kill their daughters for looking at boys?

Are they not Human? Is it a defect that they share that places a higher value on "Family Honour" than any particular individual life?

It is a side track. But the issue was some claim essentially saying their morals were no better than ours, we only think ours are better.

 

[westprog]

All good studies offer those kinds of limitations. Here's the full quote in context:But this is not the only study, there are corroborating studies.

Why don't you take the time to look at the research rather than sticking to your confirmation bias?

Because none of this translates into an "ought". We don't copy babies in terms of their bathroom arrangements. Why does a particular brain configuration mean that something ought to happen?

You keep thinking that this is an argument about biology, and that if we knew as much about biology as you do, we'd agree with you. It's not about biology at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because none of this translates into an "ought". We don't copy babies in terms of their bathroom arrangements. Why does a particular brain configuration mean that something ought to happen?

Babies' bathroom arrangements?


I believe my organic neuro-chemical brain activity can indeed determine some "oughts". You may continue to look to your magic sky daddy for yours.

 

[Brainache]

It is a side track. But the issue was some claim essentially saying their morals were no better than ours, we only think ours are better.

Well, quite. We do think our morals are better. They think their morals are better. The problem of course comes when we try to impose our "better" morals on these people who will resist our attempts with everything they have. All we get is more wars, more dead and no change in their cultural ideas of "Family Honour".

 

[westprog]

I believe my organic neuro-chemical brain activity can indeed determine some "oughts". You may continue to look to your magic sky daddy for yours.

I think you'll find that everybody gets their "oughts" from their neuro-chemical brain activity. Without exception. You seem to be saying that because you use your neuro-chemical brain activity to examine neuro-chemical brain activity, you can somehow produce a superior set of oughts.

What continues to frustrate in this discussion (which seems to be going on longer than the occupation of Afghanistan) is that the evidence cited never seems to relate to the actual claims being made, and the reasons why the claims are rejected. The idea is that the best way for human beings to decide what to do is to look at how their brains decide what to do, and use that as a basis for making a decision. This idea cannot be supported by "studies" (as reported in the Daily Mail) which simply point out one of the many ways that people do things.

I'm relieved to see that a number of other people can see the fundamental objection to the idea, which is that there is no connection between the data and the conclusion. If being moral is behaving in the way that people behave, how can anyone ever do anything immoral?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I posted a study documenting a genetic effect on moral decisions.

Thanks you for doing that. Predisposition does not make for a genetic basis of morality. You'll make more mileage on a combined nurture nature platform.

SG, I appreciate your tenacity and enthusiasm, but you are using a lot of flash and not much boom.

What you have done, throughout this argument, is to mimic the assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that God's moral law is written on the hearts of all humans before they are born.
All you did was dress it up in a secular costume.

How do you feel about presenting a cheap imitation of the Pope's argument? That is what you have done. Westprog has been trying to be helpful, and it's not getting through.

The reason I am reading this thread at this point is because AntiqueHunter is back, and is as usual providing some very tasty nuggets of goodness for this conversation, based on his real life experiences and not a load of hot air and hooey.

AH, thanks for dropping by, please keep yourself safe.

Soo, have we any Pakistanis who would like to share?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see now we are getting the theists vs the atheists, and the same old arguments.

If you don't have a magic sky daddy or other suitable definition, then where do 'oughts' come from?

They come from our brains and they exist. The fact they differ for individuals and the fact there is a range for 'ought' doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I've not been saying my oughts are better than someone else's I've been saying there are human oughts and just as we define certain behaviors as mentally ill, or out of the normal range, so can we define the normal and abnormal range of oughts. Culture is not a variable that excuses any and all behaviors.

 

[Brainache]

I see now we are getting the theists vs the atheists, and the same old arguments.

If you don't have a magic sky daddy or other suitable definition, then where do 'oughts' come from?

They come from our brains and they exist. The fact they differ for individuals and the fact there is a range for 'ought' doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I've not been saying my oughts are better than someone else's I've been saying there are human oughts and just as we define certain behaviors as mentally ill, or out of the normal range, so can we define the normal and abnormal range of oughts. Culture is not a variable that excuses any and all behaviors.

How are you going to change their minds about this - "Family Honour is more important than my daughter's life" - attitude? T-shirts? Slogans? A leaflet campaign? A letter to the editor of The Times?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How are you going to change their minds about this - "Family Honour is more important than my daughter's life" - attitude? T-shirts? Slogans? A leaflet campaign? A letter to the editor of The Times?

The fact this makes news in the US suggests world public opinion is already putting pressure on their culture to change. The reaction to the shooting of Malala is evidence just the effect of cell phone videos and access to the Internet is having an influence for the positive on these cultures.

Significant social change takes generation changeovers. The young don't adopt the practice and the old eventually die out.

 

[Brainache]

The fact this makes news in the US suggests world public opinion is already putting pressure on their culture to change. The reaction to the shooting of Malala is evidence just the effect of cell phone videos and access to the Internet is having an influence for the positive on these cultures.

Significant social change takes generation changeovers. The young don't adopt the practice and the old eventually die out.

Well, I guess we can hope, but whilever they live in small communities where reputation and things like "honour" are all-important, it's not much of a hope.

What seems to happen in these popular uprisings against oppressive regimes is that they just end up with a new oppressive regime.

Personally, I'd like to see more of this kind of protesting:Warning:NSFW
http://www.spiegel.de/international...protesters-bare-all-for-a-cause-a-799471.html

... In Egypt, art student Aliaa Magda Elmahdy is fighting for the right to freedom of expression by posting nude photos of herself on her blog -- and has triggered an uproar from Islamic conservatives as a result...

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

All good studies offer those kinds of limitations. Here's the full quote in context

Yes, because the phrase '...some studies appear to show...' really hammers home how concrete these studies are, doesn't it?

Especially when taken in context with the rest of the paragraph I posted.

:But this is not the only study, there are corroborating studies.

Yes, there are lots of other studies which are just as inconclusive; in fact one of them only mentioned testing babies as old as 15 months, and no younger. How do you prove these behaviours are 'baked-in' without studying a child from birth, and knowing how it has been brought up from birth?

Why don't you take the time to look at the research rather than sticking to your confirmation bias?

I have looked at the research, and I keep telling you that it is inconclusive; and so do a few others, yet you keep ignoring this when it's pointed out to you in favour of your pet idea. And I'm the one exhibiting confirmation bias?

Anyway, you didn't answer my question about women who have abortions - are they mentally defective? Depending on the circumstances, can a woman having an abortion be considered to be carrying out an 'Honour Killing'?

 

[Nessie]

The fact this makes news in the US suggests world public opinion is already putting pressure on their culture to change. The reaction to the shooting of Malala is evidence just the effect of cell phone videos and access to the Internet is having an influence for the positive on these cultures.

Significant social change takes generation changeovers. The young don't adopt the practice and the old eventually die out.

x2. I am quite sure that all we need to do and importantly should do, is show that there is another way whereby a society functions perfectly well, if not better without honour killings.

 

[Nessie]

Everything I have read so far about morals suggests like the predisposition to learn to talk, walk and be social animals, we also have a predisposition for morals.

So we are born as a blank canvas, but with the paint already on it ready to make the picture.