• 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

Skeptic Ginger said:
I see now we are getting the theists vs the atheists, and the same old arguments.
Click to expand...

I think that the fact that three of the people disagreeing with you are identifying themselves as demons should indicate that this is completely wrong. A typical orthodox Christian doesn't normally identify himself as Satansmalevoicechoir. YMMV.

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
Click to expand...

That may not be what you mean. It is what you've been saying, very explicitly.

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.
Click to expand...

And yet you have failed to demonstrate, beyond wishful thinking, that there is anything abnormal in human beings behaving immorally, or conversely, that when human beings behave in abnormal fashion that this is thereby immoral. Babies showing a preference for toys that won't push them down a hill doesn't really do it.
 
Belz... said:
And this comes right back to westprog's post: how do you derive an "ought" from an "is" ? What if we _were_ wired to kill ? Would that make it right ?
Click to expand...

And conversely - what if we weren't wired to rescue people from burning buildings? Would that make it wrong?

It also doesn't change the fact that behaviour is largely learned. Our "built-in" morality depends on many factors, and is not as precise as you make it out to be. We have a strong tendency to protect members of our "gang", but to attack or ridicule outsiders, for instance.
Click to expand...

All human behaviour has to be a combination of genetic predisposition and interaction with the environment (which includes other humans, of course). That's all there is. Claiming that some behaviour is normal, and other behaviour abnormal, is biologically meaningless unless some kind of evidence is adduced to indicate that the behaviour is due to a specific flaw.

A lot of animal behaviour is counter-productive for survival when circumstances arise for which evolution has not provided a strategy. Species become extinct because they are doing something wrong, in survival terms. That does not indicate that their behaviour is abnormal.
 
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
I think you are confusing emotions (which have a biological component) and built-in instincts (protecting our young in order to ensure the survival of the species, reacting to pain, etc), with morals - knowing 'right' from 'wrong', where 'right' and 'wrong' are culturally subjective.

Is it morally 'wrong' to take an infant boy and, without his consent or even knowledge of what's happening to him, remove a part of his penis for no reason other than tradition? Is mutilating babies for the sake of religious tradition a human 'norm'?
Click to expand...

No I am saying emotions, instincts and morality are all linked.

I have less of an issue with male circumcision or anything that has no long term health issues than I do with honour killings. So tattoos, earrings, the neck extension rings appear to be OK so long done properly. Female circumcision has health issues, so I would support campaigns against it.
 
Nessie said:
No I am saying emotions, instincts and morality are all linked.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK - my mistake. Yes, I'd generally go along with that. Doesn't change what I said about morals though.

Nessie said:
I have less of an issue with male circumcision or anything that has no long term health issues than I do with honour killings. So tattoos, earrings, the neck extension rings appear to be OK so long done properly. Female circumcision has health issues, so I would support campaigns against it.
Click to expand...

But is mutilating a baby in the name of tradition - however carefully it's done - morally right?
 
Mutilation is a charged word. How about an earing in a baby? I am OK with that. I am OK with male circumcision. The traditions of putting childrens feet (Japan, females) and heads into blocks of wood (South America) to shape them, I think that is dubious (maybe was as I dont think that goes on any more).
 
Nessie said:
Mutilation is a charged word. How about an earing in a baby? I am OK with that. I am OK with male circumcision. The traditions of putting childrens feet (Japan, females) and heads into blocks of wood (South America) to shape them, I think that is dubious (maybe was as I dont think that goes on any more).
Click to expand...

It is a charged word. Do you see what you're doing though? I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but you're comparing one practice to another that is culturally acceptable to you to try and justify it. Circumcision is basically mutilation of a young baby boy for no other reason than tradition.
 
Yes but men can get circumcised for health reasons as well. That is why I see it as closer to getting an earring than mutilation.
 
I'm going to duck out of here, if this is switching to circumcision. There are circ-threads on JREF already.

Are we finished talking about honor killing, Afghanistan etc...?

Circumcision does my head in.
 
Two more citations for the thread readers to consider:

Here's an abstract on the historical argument that's worth a glance. Sorry the whole article is not free to read:
Experimental analysis of nature-nurture interactions.
Laboratory experimentation and field observation showed that behavior could develop without learning but also that conditioning paradigms could powerfully mold behavior. The progress of genetics and neurobiology has led to the modern synthesis that neural development, and hence behavior, results from the interdependent action of both heredity and environment.
Click to expand...
The key point being how new this avenue of brain research is.


This article focuses on birds rather than humans but I thought the following passage was relevant:
Innateness and the instinct to learn
In embarking on this grand endeavor, it will behoove us to bear in mind any lessons we can glean from past history. Those who resist the invocation of genetic contributions to behavioral development, may still need to be reminded that involvement of the genome need not imply a commitment to stereotyped behavior. In fact, as Waddington (1957) once pointed out, the stereotypy of some behaviors could itself actually be deceptive. It could turn out that the underlying potential for flexibility is just as great with stereotyped behavior as with variable behaviors, but is masked by added mechanisms that detect and correct for the perturbations to which a developing organism must always be subject.
Click to expand...
 
Antiquehunter said:
:)
Click to expand...
That took me a second. :D

I won't get into that discussion either, especially if Ivan is around.

:boxedin:

:)

And there are plenty of other threads on morals: nature vs nurture vs gods. My only point in this thread was culture is not an absolute excuse preventing condemnation. We are becoming a global culture more and more anyway. Some things are wrong enough they don't need cross cultural considerations:

Slavery and murder come to mind, as does child abuse though the range of what is or is not abuse may have some bits of fuzzy edge.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Two more citations for the thread readers to consider:

Here's an abstract on the historical argument that's worth a glance. Sorry the whole article is not free to read:
Experimental analysis of nature-nurture interactions.The key point being how new this avenue of brain research is.


This article focuses on birds rather than humans but I thought the following passage was relevant:
Innateness and the instinct to learn
Click to expand...

Are you being serious?! Where in that abstract does it talk about morals being built-in?

The 20(th)C saw scientists recast the debate as instinct vs. learning, bitterly argued between behaviorists and ethologists. Laboratory experimentation and field observation showed that behavior could develop without learning but also that conditioning paradigms could powerfully mold behavior. The progress of genetics and neurobiology has led to the modern synthesis that neural development, and hence behavior, results from the interdependent action of both heredity and environment.
Click to expand...

The debate that has been recast is 'nature Vs nurture', which is to do with individual behaviours and how much is down to environment, and how much is passed on through genes. Nowhere, but NOWHERE, does the article you linked to back up your assertion that morals are built-in from birth. Here is Wikipedia on "Nature Vs Nurture", and not ONCE does it mention morals being built in, or genetic - it doesn't even mention morals AT ALL that I noticed:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture#section_3

Again, your article on birds is talking about behaviours - NOT morals - and it does NOT back up your assertion that we are born with morals built in.

I'll ask you again; is a woman who has an abortion mentally defective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom