IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags honor killing , islam , pakistan , traditional societies

Reply
Old 16th November 2012, 10:02 AM   #401
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I would agree he is not defective, but he's certainly unusual. Looking at the numbers of washouts, I'd say most people are simply not cut out to be so pragmatic.
And your 'bog-standard' infantryman laying up as part of a deliberate ambush? How do you think the army "de-program" his allegedly inbuilt aversion to killing?
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:03 AM   #402
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
Oh right, it's not your fault you have nothing that conclusively proves your assertion, but mine for not understanding!

Science has proven that we are all born with moral values built in - they're not something that's learned - and it's too difficult to put in laymans terms for a Thicko like me? Yeah, OK...

You have failed to provide any conclusive evidence for a single claim you have made, when called on it, and that's my fault is it?
I posted a very specific genetic influence on a well known moral dilemma that explains why people's response to the dilemma differs. It's not simply upbringing or culture, it's directly related to measurable brain chemistry.

Your answer was not to discuss the neurology or the genetics or even the study. You answer was, you don't get it therefore you dismiss it.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:04 AM   #403
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But these are a minority of people, it is not the norm. For millennia mentally ill people have existed. That doesn't make it the norm. Crime is not the norm, people who commit crimes believe they will get away with it. Do you really think that's the difference? The rest of us don't think we would get away with it, otherwise we be out there on pillaging murderous rampages?

Why would anyone ever return a valuable item they find? No one is going to catch them stealing.

Does that mean everyone would return it? No, but you seem to be mistaking the outliers for the norm.
Mobs are not composed of the minority. Lynching is not done by the mentally ill, but by normal people. All it takes is a victim who is sufficiently alien, by deed, culture or blood, to count as the Other.

That is not to say that your average person is two short hairs away from becoming a pillaging psychopath. But given the right circumstances, the right motivation... yes, Joe Six-pack can indeed be a killer.

Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
And your 'bog-standard' infantryman laying up as part of a deliberate ambush? How do you think the army "de-program" his allegedly inbuilt aversion to killing?
They call it "basic training." The soldier is conditioned to follow orders; without question, without hesitation, no matter how objectionable or nonsensical they may seem. Watch Full Metal Jacket (Warning: hilariously NSFW language). Fyi, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman was played by a REAL drill instructor, so this is straight from the horse's mouth sir no offense meant sir.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 16th November 2012 at 10:13 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:05 AM   #404
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Mobs are not composed of the minority. Lynching is not done by the mentally ill, but by normal people. All it takes is a victim who is sufficiently alien, by deed, culture or blood, to count as the Other.

That is not to say that your average person is two short hairs away from becoming a pillaging psychopath. But given the right circumstances, the right motivation... yes, Joe Six-pack can indeed be a killer.
But once again, mobs and lynching are not the norm.

It seems to me this discussion is boiling down to different definitions of moral imperatives. Just because they are not absolute does not mean they don't exist.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:18 AM   #405
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But once again, mobs and lynching are not the norm.
Sure it is! Happens all the time. I read about one in the paper happening in Virginia not two weeks ago. Some black kid scared a white girl just before Halloween, was arrested for assault, then drug out and lynched.

Just because it's not nice and talked about much doesn't meant it's disqualified from consideration for the norm.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:18 AM   #406
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why do we have laws against cruelty to animals?
I actually have no idea. Certainly not in the UK, anyway, where people lose their minds if someone puts a cat in a bin overnight, but they're happy to hunt foxes with dogs.

I know that we Brits are very protective about our pets as a nation, and like to think we are of our live food as well. But if we don't eat it or stroke it, nobody seems to mind.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:19 AM   #407
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
Rubbish. You're completely grasping at straws now. Soldiers are indeed trained to follow basic words of command, but the days of a commander pointing at a target and saying "Kill!" with an unflinching soldier blindly doing as he's told are long since gone, and haven't even been remotely like that for at least the last 40 - 50 years. Certainly the last 30. British soldiers do not act on unlawful commands, and know one when they hear one.
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
Point out where I said a soldier wouldn't climb out of a trench and charge the enemy.

You do understand what a 'lawful command' is, yes?
I now have no idea what you are going on about and why my comment

"OK so not trained on some sort of psychological level to kill, with specific here is how to turn yourself into a psychopath lessons. Just an expectation that their job is very likely to result in them killing and that they will have to deal with that and not back out of doing it.

Soldiers are trained, or maybe conditioned is a better word to follow orders, no matter what, even if that order means a high risk of theirs or another's death. That comes with basic training, drill and a new soldiers life being dominated by senior officers whose word is law."

is rubbish. You are coming over as being in a default argue mode no matter what is said to you. If a commander points and says kill, the soldier has to do that when it is a lawful order.

In the same way some Pakistani and Afghan women will react regarding honour killings, they have been conditioned and are expected to comply and in their case it is not even considered lawful as they can still be punished for murder.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:20 AM   #408
Lithrael
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
And your 'bog-standard' infantryman laying up as part of a deliberate ambush? How do you think the army "de-program" his allegedly inbuilt aversion to killing?
At a guess, I would think they reinforce all the dehumanizing out-group type stuff. It doesn't seem like it would be that amazing of an idea. 'These guys are the enemy, they're trying to kill you, also they hate you and are stupid, and they like to throw acid on uppity women, and they'd be killing each other in sectarian violence if we weren't here anyhows, so you don't need to waste any of your sympathy on them.'

This inbuilt aversion to killing that we are discussing is exponentially stronger the closer to your own in-group it is, and weaker the further away from your own in-group. Which makes sense because the idea is that it's tied to genetic survival. If you're green, you won't mind nearly as much if you had to kill the purple guy for the greater good, as you would if you had to kill a fellow green guy.

Or do you really think the infantryman would feel exactly the same about his job if he was doing it in his hometown instead of thousands of miles away from everything (besides the people he's deployed with) that he cares about?
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:24 AM   #409
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
And your 'bog-standard' infantryman laying up as part of a deliberate ambush? How do you think the army "de-program" his allegedly inbuilt aversion to killing?
By conditioning soldiers to follow orders and that killing is an expected part of the job. Setting up and conducting an ambush is lawful and accepted during conflict and so the soldiers have been programmed/trained/conditioned to do it.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:31 AM   #410
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
I actually have no idea. ....
Well that ought to be a clue for you.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:36 AM   #411
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
They call it "basic training." The soldier is conditioned to follow orders; without question, without hesitation, no matter how objectionable or nonsensical they may seem. Watch Full Metal Jacket (Warning: hilariously NSFW language). Fyi, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman was played by a REAL drill instructor, so this is straight from the horse's mouth sir no offense meant sir.
FMJ is set about 50 years ago, and deals with the American army. With no disrespect to the US Forces, I know for a fact that the British Army has not churned out brainwashed unthinking automatons for at least 30-40 years. British soldiers are trained to follow basic words of command, yes, but are also trained to act independently, work 2 rank levels above their own if possible. Orders (as in formal written/verbal orders) are not given and expected to be followed to the letter - a subordinate commander gives the broad parameters, the assets, enemy forces and his intent - the detail of the execution is left to those on the ground, often at a very junior level.

Getting all your ideas about how a modern army (certainly the British Army) operates is like getting all your ideas about how modern computers work by using a 1950's card operated 'computer'.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:38 AM   #412
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Sure it is! Happens all the time. I read about one in the paper happening in Virginia not two weeks ago. Some black kid scared a white girl just before Halloween, was arrested for assault, then drug out and lynched.
You may want to re-read that report:
Crime History: Leesburg teen lynched for frightening white girl
Quote:
On this day, Nov. 8, in 1889, Orion "Owen" Anderson was lynched in Leesburg for donning a sack on his head and frightening a white girl as she walked to school.
I'm pretty sure that would have created a national outrage had that been just 2 weeks ago. But perhaps you have a different link?

People who kill under those cultural circumstances first have to come to the belief that the person they are killing is not human. That doesn't negate the innate nature of morality, it side steps it.


Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Just because it's not nice and talked about much doesn't meant it's disqualified from consideration for the norm.
We're debating with two completely different concepts. It's cross talk.

The norm. It's a big world. There are things going on every second of every day that are outside the norm.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th November 2012 at 10:46 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:43 AM   #413
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
For the readers general consideration, dehumanizing is a long known concept:

The Lucifer Effect: Dehumanization
Quote:
At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil.
The fact innate morality is plastic, or not the same in every human, or exists with fuzzy edges or a range of moral beliefs and behaviors, does not mean neurobiology is not the underlying mechanism of morality.

It's like saying, because people are different shapes and sizes, or because one can over eat or under eat and affect one's body size, it must not be genetic makeup underlying the difference.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 16th November 2012 at 10:45 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:48 AM   #414
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
FMJ is set about 50 years ago, and deals with the American army. With no disrespect to the US Forces, I know for a fact that the British Army has not churned out brainwashed unthinking automatons for at least 30-40 years. British soldiers are trained to follow basic words of command, yes, but are also trained to act independently, work 2 rank levels above their own if possible. Orders (as in formal written/verbal orders) are not given and expected to be followed to the letter - a subordinate commander gives the broad parameters, the assets, enemy forces and his intent - the detail of the execution is left to those on the ground, often at a very junior level.

Getting all your ideas about how a modern army (certainly the British Army) operates is like getting all your ideas about how modern computers work by using a 1950's card operated 'computer'.

Indeed and within that there is clearly still a place for a more senior soldier to order troops out of a trench and to charge. I am sure we agree on all of this.

Maybe some of the confusion here is down to outwith conflict a soldier will have no instinct to kill and has the instinct of protecting their offspring, but in conflict his instinct to kill will take over, but not such that he would kill his offspring. Those places with honour killings are not at war, so they need to be conditioned to kill, especially their children who instinctively we protect.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:49 AM   #415
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You may want to re-read that report:
Crime History: Leesburg teen lynched for frightening white girlI'm pretty sure that would have created a national outrage had that been just 2 weeks ago. But perhaps you have a different link?
Hm... coulda been. I tried googling it myself, but the false positives I got for "Virginia Lynch" took longer to sort through than my customary thirty second giving a damn duration.

Quote:
We're debating with two completely different concepts. It's cross talk.

The norm. It's a big world. There are things going on every second of every day that are outside the norm.
But they're all people. Presumably innate behaviors are innate everywhere, yes?

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 16th November 2012 at 10:51 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:50 AM   #416
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Soldiers are trained, or maybe conditioned is a better word to follow orders, no matter what, even if that order means a high risk of theirs or another's death. That comes with basic training, drill and a new soldiers life being dominated by senior officers whose word is law."
No. You are getting all your ideas from films and television. We are NOT trained to blindly follow orders 'no matter what', or follow the word of a superior officer as if it was law. We are trained to follow basic words of command, but never blindly and without thought to consequences. We are encouraged to point out better ways of doing things to our superiors, give suggestions and rely on experience. A better way of doing something based on proven experience will always take precedence over the word of a commander, if he has got any sense.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
If a commander points and says kill, the soldier has to do that when it is a lawful order.
I'm pretty sure I said something similar...

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
In the same way some Pakistani and Afghan women will react regarding honour killings, they have been conditioned and are expected to comply and in their case it is not even considered lawful as they can still be punished for murder.
Yes, they have been conditioned by their culture to believe that honour killing is morally right. Just as in Western culture we have been conditioned to believe that murder is unacceptable and morally wrong.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:55 AM   #417
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Well that ought to be a clue for you.
British people are only caring towards animals they pet or eat, and anything else is OK to be chased with, and ripped apart by dogs?

British landed gentry are all born defective when it comes to foxes?
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 10:58 AM   #418
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
I understand a Western army soldier would now be unlikely to charge a tank with no gun as Soviets did during WWII, or for their senior officers to be behind then shooting the ones who did not keep charging for failing orders. You have decided that I have only ever watched TV and films and that is where I get my information from and you move goal posts and argue past me to keep that idea going.

We agree more than I think you realise, hence no issue about a soldier following a lawful order.

So you agree conditioning is needed to kill in certain circumstances? That suggests it goes against instinct.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:01 AM   #419
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
British people are only caring towards animals they pet or eat, and anything else is OK to be chased with, and ripped apart by dogs?

British landed gentry are all born defective when it comes to foxes?
No that is down to breeding and conditioning by tradition and environment. But you could get anyone to do it if their animals which they depend on are being savaged by foxes and dogs provide a means of stopping that.

It just so happens for some that chase between dog and fox became a kind of sport and less cruel methods of killing foxes were ignored.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:07 AM   #420
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I understand a Western army soldier would now be unlikely to charge a tank with no gun as Soviets did during WWII, or for their senior officers to be behind then shooting the ones who did not keep charging for failing orders. You have decided that I have only ever watched TV and films and that is where I get my information from and you move goal posts and argue past me to keep that idea going.
So where ARE you getting your ideas about soldiers then? And where have I moved the goalposts?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
So you agree conditioning is needed to kill in certain circumstances? That suggests it goes against instinct.
No, because we in the West are culturally conditioned NOT to kill. Which would suggest our natural state is a 'blank slate' where we have no compulsion either way, outside of basic survival instincts.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James

Last edited by SatansMaleVoiceChoir; 16th November 2012 at 11:15 AM.
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:13 AM   #421
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No that is down to breeding and conditioning by tradition and environment. But you could get anyone to do it if their animals which they depend on are being savaged by foxes and dogs provide a means of stopping that.

It just so happens for some that chase between dog and fox became a kind of sport and less cruel methods of killing foxes were ignored.
So we're born with an in-built sense of kindness to all living things then? That's why we have animal cruelty laws?

What about BEFORE we had animal cruelty laws? Were we born indifferent to animals, then quickly evolved to be born kind to animals, over the course of say 100 years?

Or did our cultural moral zeitgeist just change, and we're born as a moral 'blank slate', and have to learn 'right' from 'wrong'?
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James

Last edited by SatansMaleVoiceChoir; 16th November 2012 at 11:15 AM.
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:14 AM   #422
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
I have been getting them from my dad who was a soldier and from the study of military history up to the present day.

You particularly moved the goal posts as shown in post #407 when you claimed what i had said was rubbish but accepted a soldier would still have to charge an enemy out of a trench if so ordered by a commander.

I think our natural state is not blank but instead it has both kill and not kill depending on situation or circumstances. So not kill your offspring, kill attackers, not kill random strangers for no reason, kill if desperate for scarce resources to survive.

Hence a soldier attacking the enemy needs some conditioning, as killing is still traumatic but not as much conditioning as a mother needs to kill their offspring in a honour killing.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:17 AM   #423
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 15,720
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
So we're born with an in-built sense of kindness to all living things then? ......
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own, our pets, animals that we need for food and their other products, but not to unknown aggressive males or lions.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:28 AM   #424
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I have been getting them from my dad who was a soldier and from the study of military history up to the present day.

You particularly moved the goal posts as shown in post #407 when you claimed what i had said was rubbish but accepted a soldier would still have to charge an enemy out of a trench if so ordered by a commander.
I owe you an apology; I checked post #407 back and it should have read "point at ANY target..", not "at A target...", which changes things somewhat, and makes more sense in the context of the point I'm making, ie; a modern soldier is expected to be able to judge what is lawful and act accordingly. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think our natural state is not blank but instead it has both kill and not kill depending on situation or circumstances. So not kill your offspring, kill attackers, not kill random strangers for no reason, kill if desperate for scarce resources to survive.

Hence a soldier attacking the enemy needs some conditioning, as killing is still traumatic but not as much conditioning as a mother needs to kill their offspring in a honour killing.
I put 'blank', but (as I put in my last post while you were writing this one) I kind of mean 'indifferent'.

We're saying 'conditioning', but I'm not sure it's the right thing to say if we're born indifferent/morally blank. We could kill depending on the situation with no problem, but until we are taught our society's moral values, we wouldn't know or care if it was 'right' or 'wrong' - so there's no compulsion, or inhibition towards killing.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:31 AM   #425
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own, our pets, animals that we need for food and their other products, but not to unknown aggressive males or lions.
Or game animals that we hunt for fun, hundreds of years after we ceased needing to practice the skill?
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James

Last edited by SatansMaleVoiceChoir; 16th November 2012 at 11:37 AM.
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:36 AM   #426
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
To be fair to Skeptic Ginger, the only way to conclusively prove we're born with morals built-in would be to raise a child from birth to adulthood in a sterile, controlled environment and then test them. Would be extremely difficult to do though; imagine using children's books to teach the child to read while trying to avoid any moral lessons...
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:40 AM   #427
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I think you guys are talking past one another. You're talking about the fight half of a fight or flight situation which is well documented. They're talking about a natural disinclination to harm someone when you have ample time to consider it, which seems clearly indicated by various experiments on empathy etc.
I don't think anyone is disputing that empathy exists. It's the claim that empathy has some kind of special status, biologically, which unempathetic actions don't have.

The existence of a gene which disposes people towards being more empathetic in no way implies a sound biological basis for morality.

Quote:
I also think the "defective" they mentioned was meant to refer to straight-up psychopaths who have no particular disinclination to harm besides repercussions imposed by other people. I don't think they meant to say anyone who is capable of killing is defective. Because that would be silly.
That might not be what SG meant to say, but it's what she did say.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:44 AM   #428
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
This is one reason why I have so little interest in posting citations for you. You don't understand the concepts involved. It's a waste of time to discuss this with you until you bring your neurobiology and genetic science knowledge base up to a higher level of understanding than you have.
"It's all far, far too complicated for you to understand. Nevertheless, all the data prove that I am right."
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:45 AM   #429
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Hence a soldier attacking the enemy needs some conditioning, as killing is still traumatic but not as much conditioning as a mother needs to kill their offspring in a honour killing.
Plus, the mother would have been brought up from birth believing that murder is wrong, but honour killing isn't - it's absolutely the right thing to do. She would have been learning both at the same time; not grown up thinking all murder is wrong until the age of 18, when she would then be intensively programmed to accept honour killings.

Don't many US states punish the crime of killing another human being by killing a human being?

"Planning and carrying out the execution of a human being is WRONG! We will now demonstrate this by planning and carrying out the execution of a human being!". Funny when you look at it like that.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:47 AM   #430
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by westprog View Post
"It's all far, far too complicated for you to understand. Nevertheless, all the data prove that I am right."
You picked up on that too, huh?
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:48 AM   #431
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
"Not killing" is one of those.
Evidence, please.

Quote:
But if you think without a law or religious rule against killing people would have no reluctance to kill, that's a naive position.
False dishotomy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:50 AM   #432
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
But these are a minority of people, it is not the norm.
Again, evidence ? Today people have little incentive to kill each other because we live in such a comfortable world. I didn't say people killed willy-nilly, but they certainly had less qualms about hacking each other with swords over matters we'd consider trivial.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:50 AM   #433
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I posted a very specific genetic influence on a well known moral dilemma that explains why people's response to the dilemma differs. It's not simply upbringing or culture, it's directly related to measurable brain chemistry.

Your answer was not to discuss the neurology or the genetics or even the study. You answer was, you don't get it therefore you dismiss it.
You made a very specific assertion that people who kill are defective. I have yet to see anything in support of that assertion.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:53 AM   #434
westprog
Philosopher
 
westprog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own, our pets, animals that we need for food and their other products, but not to unknown aggressive males or lions.
That's precisely the point. If we had universal empathy, we probably wouldn't be able to function. We have empathy which is limited in its scope. We have hostility, which is also limited. The balance between the two depends on circumstances. The idea that our empathetic impulses are normal, whereas our hostile impulses are due to some kind of genetic fault is simply absurd.
__________________
Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.
westprog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:53 AM   #435
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No. We are born with an inbuilt sense of kindness to children, particularly our own
I think this is just a cultural evolution of our natural instinct to protect helpless young and perpetuate the species. A lot of animals have this, a lot don't - If it was built-in, rodents wouldn't eat their new-born, and chimps wouldn't kill baby chimps.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:55 AM   #436
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Evidence, please.
Good luck my friend. I stopped asking pages ago...
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:01 PM   #437
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
...
But they're all people. Presumably innate behaviors are innate everywhere, yes?
Innate behaviors does not require said behavior be a single rigid thing. I don't understand why this concept is excluded from people claiming morality is learned (or comes from the magic sky daddy or pixie dust). The fact we don't all have the exact same morality does not preclude that moral framework being the result of our hardwired brains.

It's a very easy paradigm for me.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:05 PM   #438
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
British people are only caring towards animals they pet or eat, and anything else is OK to be chased with, and ripped apart by dogs?

British landed gentry are all born defective when it comes to foxes?
Why not care about animals that are cute and furry and with big eyes and not animals that are hunted for food or sports or that are ugly?

Why would it need to be all or none instead of a more nuanced form of empathy?

Most farmers don't give personal names to animals they intend to slaughter for meat. But they name their pets. Why is that? Why do people mourn their pet's passing but not the meat animal on their table?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:07 PM   #439
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by SatansMaleVoiceChoir View Post
I think this is just a cultural evolution of our natural instinct to protect helpless young and perpetuate the species. A lot of animals have this, a lot don't - If it was built-in, rodents wouldn't eat their new-born, and chimps wouldn't kill baby chimps.
Your arguments of all or none just fail one after the other.

Here's a hint: the genetics and brains of all the lifeforms on Earth differ.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:08 PM   #440
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,446
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
For the readers general consideration, dehumanizing is a long known concept:

The Lucifer Effect: DehumanizationThe fact innate morality is plastic, or not the same in every human, or exists with fuzzy edges or a range of moral beliefs and behaviors, does not mean neurobiology is not the underlying mechanism of morality.

It's like saying, because people are different shapes and sizes, or because one can over eat or under eat and affect one's body size, it must not be genetic makeup underlying the difference.
I am sad about something because I am culturally conditioned to be sad about it, and this triggers chemicals in my brain which causes the feelings I associate with sadness, and certain physical reactions.

If I have no moral sense of whether something is 'right' or 'wrong', I will not feel anything about it at all. If I am not taught stealing is 'wrong' then I will have no qualms about it.

Ever watched two babies play? Ever seen one take a toy from the other and play with it happily, without any remorse or understanding of why the other child is crying? Ever wonder why a (good) parent will then come over and demonstrate simply the concept of sharing and property? Why do they feel the need? Or is the baby just defective?
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.