Honor killing in Pakistan

[Skeptic Ginger]

No it's not is it? What you actually said was:



'Deficient' would suggest these people are missing something mentally, whereas you're simply suggesting they are mentally defective, or have localised brain damage.

Well that's completely different!

Where your interpretation of that went wrong, and I did explain it to you a number of times, is that was referring to psychopaths. That people who aren't psychopaths kill is a different matter. But they still need something to happen to them to go against the normal inhibition to killing. One such means is see the person you kill as 'not human'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I missed something you said, feel free to clarify. Otherwise I don't get your point calling it ironic that you've all twisted my words. Are you claiming to know my thoughts better than I do?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I missed something you said, feel free to clarify. Otherwise I don't get your point calling it ironic that you've all twisted my words. Are you claiming to know my thoughts better than I do?

I guess it's this:

Do you really need this to tell you it's wrong for parents to murder their 15 year-old daughter because she was looking at boys? aren't some things obvious, such as that it's basically right to help people and wrong to harm them?

Well obviously not, or some people wouldn't do it like it's the right thing to do.

Feel free to explain what you meant.

 

[Brainache]

I guess it's this:




Feel free to explain what you meant.

I'm not Belz..., but I'd venture to guess he meant that it isn't obviously wrong to those people who believe it is right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not Belz..., but I'd venture to guess he meant that it isn't obviously wrong to those people who believe it is right.

That's the gist of what my comments replied to. Murder isn't necessarily wrong in the eyes of the murderer. A couple people in the thread seem to think no one can say their moral beliefs are valid while another's are not. Some of us say that's BS.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Where your interpretation of that went wrong, and I did explain it to you a number of times, is that was referring to psychopaths. That people who aren't psychopaths kill is a different matter.

OK... Don't remember you explaining that, and the quote of yours is pretty clear; you were replying to this exchange between Kaylee and I:

Originally Posted by Kaylee
Seriously? The sanctity of human life does. This goes beyond cultural values

Who says?

To which you replied:

Quote:
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.

So, you'll forgive me if it now looks like you're saying that anyone who isn't born with the 'right' (read: Western) moral values programmed in, is a psychopath? Or that those in cultures who practice Honour Killing are psychopaths?

But they still need something to happen to them to go against the normal inhibition to killing. One such means is see the person you kill as 'not human'.

Oh you're still throwing that opinion of yours out there like it was a fact, with no evidence to back it up whatsoever?

 

[Brainache]

That's the gist of what my comments replied to. Murder isn't necessarily wrong in the eyes of the murderer. A couple people in the thread seem to think no one can say their moral beliefs are valid while another's are not. Some of us say that's BS.

But the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too. How can you claim access to some objective moral standard when your morals are culturally derived, just like theirs? They are born with the same brains and genetic predispositions as you, but their culture places a different value on "Family Honour" than yours.

Of course I'd like to see them change their ways, but I have no right to impose my values on them by force, and even if I had that right any attempt would be doomed to failure. They have to change it themselves, we can't make them.

 

[Antiquehunter]

What you mean is, if we in the West don't feel a behaviour or tradition sits comfortably with our moral values and standards, it doesn't matter what those doing it think - it is fair game for us to change.

I think you're being somewhat disingenuous here. In the specific case of 'honor killing' - NO country on the planet permits this, to my knowledge. It gets brushed under the carpet / explained away, sure. But not even the Sharia-iest of Sharia countries 'permits' honour killing.

And indeed, every country on the planet has a law against murder - or at least, I am unaware of any jurisdiction where their laws would not prosecute a murderer. (Sure, there are countries with practically no rule of law - but that doesn't mean that you can go to Somalia and kill someone and not expect to be prosecuted.)

So - to suggest we are imposing our moral values/standards on another country in the case of honour killing is rather disingenuous.

Attempting to impose a burkha ban on Afghan women from the outside, or forcefeeding Jewish people bacon & tomato sandwiches - those would be impositions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too. How can you claim access to some objective moral standard when your morals are culturally derived, just like theirs? They are born with the same brains and genetic predispositions as you, but their culture places a different value on "Family Honour" than yours.

Of course I'd like to see them change their ways, but I have no right to impose my values on them by force, and even if I had that right any attempt would be doomed to failure. They have to change it themselves, we can't make them.

There are lots of objective measures for why murdering and maiming the female members of a society is an f-ed up cultural position.

 

[TimCallahan]

But the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too. How can you claim access to some objective moral standard when your morals are culturally derived, just like theirs? They are born with the same brains and genetic predispositions as you, but their culture places a different value on "Family Honour" than yours.

Of course I'd like to see them change their ways, but I have no right to impose my values on them by force, and even if I had that right any attempt would be doomed to failure. They have to change it themselves, we can't make them.

Murder is an objective reality. So, it doesn't matter in the least if some jerk-off jack-ass thinks he's doing what's good in the matter of honor killing.

Let's look at some of the realities of honor killing. In one case, a Palestinian Arab father who was a Christian, when he found that his daughter had a Muslim boyfriend, pinned her against his front door and slowly drove a knife einto her chest. After he had killed her, he stabbed her corpse multiple times.

In another case, in Iraq, a brother killed his sister, who had been raped by another brother, thus bringing dishonor on the family. After he had murdered his sister, he said he could now hold up his head in his community. Apparantly, the fact that his brother was and incestuous rapist did not bring dishonor on the family.

The case that impelled me to initiate this thread, which occurred in Pakistan, was one in which a girl of 15 was murdered most brutally by her parents, who poured acid over her body and let her lie in agony for two days before they took her to a hospital - to die. Her crime?: She looked a t boys. The parents initially show no remorse for their actions. Later, the mother expressed some sorrow. I suspect this has more to do with self preservation than anything else.

Typically, in cases of honor killing, the guilty party is sentenced to no more than a few months in prison. That's in these benighted parts of the world where it so commonly occurs. I have no compunction about saying that this is objectively wrong and absolutely evil. And, yes, we are vastly superior in our morals than they are.

Finally, let us consider situations in which these scum export their honor killings into our society. In the case of the Said sisters, Sarah and Amina, born and raised in the U.S.A., their father, Yaser Said, fled after shooting them multiple times. This walking piece of excrement is still at large, having fled in a most cowardly fashion after "honorably" executing his own daughters.

Please do not insult my intellect or offend my sense of basic decency by further appeals to the idea that, "the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too." What a bunch of crap!

 

[Brainache]

There are lots of objective measures for why murdering and maiming the female members of a society is an f-ed up cultural position.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Sure, killing your kids is a bad idea in a Darwinian sense, but these idiots live in a world where if the reputation of the family is tarnished by slutty daughters they will be shunned. They won't get work, they won't get housing and the whole family will starve, which is an even worse result for the family than the loss of one child.

Murder is an objective reality. So, it doesn't matter in the least if some jerk-off jack-ass thinks he's doing what's good in the matter of honor killing.

Let's look at some of the realities of honor killing. In one case, a Palestinian Arab father who was a Christian, when he found that his daughter had a Muslim boyfriend, pinned her against his front door and slowly drove a knife einto her chest. After he had killed her, he stabbed her corpse multiple times.

In another case, in Iraq, a brother killed his sister, who had been raped by another brother, thus bringing dishonor on the family. After he had murdered his sister, he said he could now hold up his head in his community. Apparantly, the fact that his brother was and incestuous rapist did not bring dishonor on the family.

The case that impelled me to initiate this thread, which occurred in Pakistan, was one in which a girl of 15 was murdered most brutally by her parents, who poured acid over her body and let her lie in agony for two days before they took her to a hospital - to die. Her crime?: She looked a t boys. The parents initially show no remorse for their actions. Later, the mother expressed some sorrow. I suspect this has more to do with self preservation than anything else.

Typically, in cases of honor killing, the guilty party is sentenced to no more than a few months in prison. That's in these benighted parts of the world where it so commonly occurs. I have no compunction about saying that this is objectively wrong and absolutely evil. And, yes, we are vastly superior in our morals than they are.

Finally, let us consider situations in which these scum export their honor killings into our society. In the case of the Said sisters, Sarah and Amina, born and raised in the U.S.A., their father, Yaser Said, fled after shooting them multiple times. This walking piece of excrement is still at large, having fled in a most cowardly fashion after "honorably" executing his own daughters.

Please do not insult my intellect or offend my sense of basic decency by further appeals to the idea that, "the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too." What a bunch of crap!

I'm not defending these people. As a father I can't express just how wrong I think this "Honour Killing" is. I find it despicable.

My point about "the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too." was in response to this comment by SkepticGinger:

A couple people in the thread seem to think no one can say their moral beliefs are valid while another's are not. Some of us say that's BS.

Making the point that those honour killers would probably say that SG's morals were not valid if she let her daughters run around with boys.

My only point here is that we can't stop them by sending in troops (if we could, I'd be all for it). They have to change from within.

What are we going to do? An ad campaign? Leaflet drops? Any suggestions? The only solution I can see is education, but even that is anathema to a lot of these people.

 

[tsig]

There is no such thing as objective morality. Sure, killing your kids is a bad idea in a Darwinian sense, but these idiots live in a world where if the reputation of the family is tarnished by slutty daughters they will be shunned. They won't get work, they won't get housing and the whole family will starve, which is an even worse result for the family than the loss of one child.



I'm not defending these people. As a father I can't express just how wrong I think this "Honour Killing" is. I find it despicable.

My point about "the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too." was in response to this comment by SkepticGinger:
Making the point that those honour killers would probably say that SG's morals were not valid if she let her daughters run around with boys.

My only point here is that we can't stop them by sending in troops (if we could, I'd be all for it). They have to change from within.

What are we going to do? An ad campaign? Leaflet drops? Any suggestions? The only solution I can see is education, but even that is anathema to a lot of these people.

Since it happened in another country I'd suggest that that is their problem.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I think you're being somewhat disingenuous here. In the specific case of 'honor killing' - NO country on the planet permits this, to my knowledge. It gets brushed under the carpet / explained away, sure. But not even the Sharia-iest of Sharia countries 'permits' honour killing.

And indeed, every country on the planet has a law against murder - or at least, I am unaware of any jurisdiction where their laws would not prosecute a murderer. (Sure, there are countries with practically no rule of law - but that doesn't mean that you can go to Somalia and kill someone and not expect to be prosecuted.)

So - to suggest we are imposing our moral values/standards on another country in the case of honour killing is rather disingenuous.

I'm not talking about the legality of it, and never have been. The fact that Honour Killing is illegal does not stop these people from believing it to be morally right to do. Just because murder is illegal practically wordwide does not give us the right in the West to interfere with another culture. Their own countries should be managing the problem.

Please don't substitute legality for morality and then suggest I am being disingenuous. That was never my argument.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

Please do not insult my intellect or offend my sense of basic decency by further appeals to the idea that, "the people doing the honour killings believe their morals are valid too." What a bunch of crap!

Unfortunately the fact is that this is something that has been going on for 3000+ years, and these people feel culturally obliged to do this, and the facts don't really care about your intellect or your basic (Western) sense of decency; they'll carry on being facts regardless.

According to Wikipedia, women's groups in the Middle East estimate there are around 20,000 Honour Killings a year. However, the only ones that seem to hit the news are the really horrific ones - like the examples you cite. This doesn't lessen the nature of the crime, but it would suggest that not every single attack is a lurid, bloody torturous, lingering death carried out by some drooling, unfeeling sadist. Nobody here approves of Honour Killing, so you can leave the appeal to emotion at the door.

 

[TimCallahan]

Unfortunately the fact is that this is something that has been going on for 3000+ years, and these people feel culturally obliged to do this, and the facts don't really care about your intellect or your basic (Western) sense of decency; they'll carry on being facts regardless.

According to Wikipedia, women's groups in the Middle East estimate there are around 20,000 Honour Killings a year. However, the only ones that seem to hit the news are the really horrific ones - like the examples you cite. This doesn't lessen the nature of the crime, but it would suggest that not every single attack is a lurid, bloody torturous, lingering death carried out by some drooling, unfeeling sadist. Nobody here approves of Honour Killing, so you can leave the appeal to emotion at the door.

As I've stated earlier, we can put pressure on the governments of such countries by foreign aid restrictions. That is to say, they don't get our money unless we have evidence that perpetrators of honor killings are dealt with harshly. We can also educate women. This will, indeed, be an uphill battle, but I can't see just standing aside and letting the practice go on.

We should also deal particularly harshly with those who perpetrate such acts in our own country. We also need to deal with the threat proactively. In the case of the Said sisters, there was strong evidence of physical abuse well before their scumbag father murdered them. They should have been taken away from him, and a restraining order should have been enforced to keep the murderous scum from ever having contact with the girls.

 

[TimCallahan]

Unfortunately the fact is that this is something that has been going on for 3000+ years, and these people feel culturally obliged to do this, and the facts don't really care about your intellect or your basic (Western) sense of decency; they'll carry on being facts regardless.

According to Wikipedia, women's groups in the Middle East estimate there are around 20,000 Honour Killings a year. However, the only ones that seem to hit the news are the really horrific ones - like the examples you cite. This doesn't lessen the nature of the crime, but it would suggest that not every single attack is a lurid, bloody torturous, lingering death carried out by some drooling, unfeeling sadist. Nobody here approves of Honour Killing, so you can leave the appeal to emotion at the door.

It would appear, from accounts I have read, that gratuitous violence and cruelty is part of the problem. Every account I've come across so far involves excessive, often frenzied, violence. For example, consider, from the Wikipedia article on honor killing, the case of Palestina Isa (emphasis added):

Sixteen-year-old Palestina (Tina) Isa was murdered by her father, Zein Isa, with the aid of her mother, Maria Isa, in 1989. The Isas were a family of Palestinian immigrants living in St. Louis, Missouri. Their daughter listened to American popular music such as dance, rap, R&B, and rock. After learning that Palestina had taken a part-time job without her parents' permission, and dated a non-Muslim man African American, her father felt she had become too Westernized. On the day of her murder, Zein repeatedly stabbed his daughter Tina, while her mother Maria held her down.[

 

[TimCallahan]

Since it happened in another country I'd suggest that that is their problem.

No, I don't agree. We don't shrug our shoulders in cases of prisoners of conscience, and, in many cases, the focus of people around the world on the case of those jailed, tortured or murdered for their political beliefs has brought about change. Why should we treat honor killing any differently.

 

[TimCallahan]

There is no such thing as objective morality.

I would say that physical torture and death are pretty objective and certainly quantifiable.

Sure, killing your kids is a bad idea in a Darwinian sense, but these idiots live in a world where if the reputation of the family is tarnished by slutty daughters they will be shunned. They won't get work, they won't get housing and the whole family will starve, which is an even worse result for the family than the loss of one child. . . . (mega-snip) . . .

Which sort of slutty daughters are you talking about, the ones who were raped by their brothers? In one such case, the mother killed her daughter when, after the girl had been raped by one of her brothers, she was found to be pregnant. In another such case, even though the girl - I think she was in her teens - wasn't pregnant after her brother raped her, another of her brothers killed her. After he had done so, he said that now he could hold his head up. He felt genuinely happy about what he had done.

Or were you referring to the slutty girl in the OP whose parents poured acid over her and left her to linger for two days before taking her to a hospital, where she died? Her slutty behavior amounted to looking at boys.

Or how about the slutty Christian Palestinian girl whose father pinned her against the front door with a knife, which he slowly drove into her body? Afterward, he repeatedly stabbed her corpse in a frenzy. Her slutty crime? She had a Muslim boyfriend. I forget which of Jesus' teachings the father was fulfilling in this case. It must not have had anything to do with the story of the woman taken in adultery.

Let me offer an alternative that could perhaps be implemented by governments in countries where honor killings are common. They could set up, with the help of international NGOs, places where the dishonored daughter could be dropped off. Such girls or women could be viewed as dead to their families. They would lose all family association and be given new names and identities, perhaps even moved to a different location. I would even be in favor of adopting them into western society, allowing them to emigrate to the US or some western European country.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's no sense arguing about an objective morality. It's unlikely anyone in the thread is going to change their position. And, we have different concepts of what makes morality 'objective'. So rather than an argument, this is simply a description of my concept of an objective morality.

From my paradigm, any value judgement depends on the outcome measure. It doesn't matter if you are doing hard science or the 'softer' social science. You cannot give a value of even something so much as energy without designating what you are measuring. Molecule X has Y amount of energy tells you nothing if you don't designate the criteria and an energy scale to measure. Yes, if you measure molecule X's energy you get the same result and it's easy to agree on the scale and criteria. But that doesn't mean morality is any less real, and being real it exists. It happens that the scale and criteria are dependent on the human brain, and brains are not all exactly alike. But to suggest there is no objective morality is to suggest the criteria embedded in one's brain doesn't really exist.

I understand the arguments against this. I don't have an argument with the problem that the 'Universe' doesn't have an objective morality. Why should that make the evolved morality of humans any less objective?

When we make a value judgement like, how beautiful or what is moral or not, the criteria and scale we are using exists within our brains. Scale and criteria don't typically cross our conscious centers when we make the evaluation, but it can nonetheless be consciously determined with an effort.

It may appear there is an objective measure of energy and no objective measure of morality, and to some people, that is how the world makes sense to them. But not to me.


Morality exists on a continuum, and the continuum is not a two dimensional line. It's perhaps better illustrated as a line with a lot of branches with contingencies and variation. But at the far ends of the continuum we can reach a consensus about certain moral premises. Acceptable killing of another requires a very high moral threshold and failure to follow some cultural more does not come close to crossing that threshold.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

I'm not talking about the legality of it, and never have been. The fact that Honour Killing is illegal does not stop these people from believing it to be morally right to do. Just because murder is illegal practically wordwide does not give us the right in the West to interfere with another culture. Their own countries should be managing the problem.

Please don't substitute legality for morality and then suggest I am being disingenuous. That was never my argument.

If women in those countries in which honor killing commonly occurs had equal rights to redress and equal access to resources as men, then I think that your argument against cross-cultural interference would be valid. But when women are treated as de facto male property, they cannot willingly enter into this arrangement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...by-text-if-their-wives-leave-the-country.html

Then this cultural difference becomes evil, and we are complicit unless we call out evil.