The Companion to A Difficult Decision.

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Do you opt for:

  • A) Disappearance.
  • B) Assassination.
  • C) Re-Assimilation.
  • D) Non-Interference.
0 voters

This thread is the companion to “A Difficult Decision”. If you haven’t read that thread, and voted, then reading this thread is pretty pointless, and will ruin the surprise, such as it is. So go here:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=179127

And read it, and vote, if you haven’t.

“But-but-but, Tab, I have read it, I have voted.”

Well okay then, scroll on down.

Are you sure you’ve already visited this thread…? http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=179127

You are…? Okay, scroll down.

Last warning: :law-policered: [size=200]Spoliers[/size] :law-policered: below…

Here’s a snapshot I took of the poll on the other thread as it stood today:

The only thing to note is that no-one chose the non-interference option. Public assassination was ahead, but not by much obviously. This is however, exactly the result that sometimes occurs in real life.

You might also have noticed that the OP on the other thread was very vague. There was no country mentioned. The sex of the agent involved was not mentioned. The nature of the resources absconded with were not mentioned. The exact nature of the group was not mentioned. I framed the question deliberately to obscure what was really going on. I did this because if you had really known what I was asking your opinion on, you would have answered differently.

Here is how I intended the scenario to be, with all of the details supplied.

Sufficiently intrigued…? Scroll on.

But the real situation is:

You are the patriarch of an extended family, or clan, or kinship-group, living in either Pakistan, rural India, Eastern Turkey, Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the ME, dedicated to protecting both its family members and their children, against a background of constant sectarian violence, and inter kinship-group power-mongering.

It is brought to your attention that one of the women within your extended family is suspected of having formed a secret liason with a man of an opposing group. Upon investigation this suspicion is found to be true and the woman in question is your daughter. She is planning to elope with her unsanctioned husband-to-be very soon, taking with her three things: Her reproductive value. Her bride-price, which, as the daughter of a patriarch, would have been substantial. Her usefulness as a bargaining chip in negotiations and alliances with other kinship-groups for political and material gain.

In practical terms, this defection will compromise both your group’s honour, and demonstrate your group’s weakness in the eyes of opposing groups, possibly leading them to begin a wholesale campaign of violence against you, jeopardising the future well-being of the entire extended family. As an added complication, since you yourself were responsible for the upbringing of your daughter, her elopement, and the loss of honour incumbent to a failure to control the sexuality of your offspring will bring into question your right to lead the group, almost certainly leading to your downfall - not to mention a period of inter-famillial conflict over who will replace you, something the family can ill afford.

Realistically, you have these options:

A) Disappearance. You can arrange things quietly so that your daughter is simply never seen or heard from ever again. Not unless she can breathe underwater anyway.

B) Assassination. You can order another male of your family to publicly assassinate his sister, meaning some jailtime for your son, but creating a deterrent for your own group and a display of strength and unity to your opposition. Or you could have her publicly stoned to death.

C) Re-Assimilation. You can have your daughter taken to a secure location and attempt, if necessary forcibly, to persuade her not to elope. Eventually you will require of her some proof of loyalty, acceptable to the family, or she will be disposed of via (A) or (B). But this option is a long shot, and will still damage your honour.

D) Non-Interference. You do nothing to oppose your daughter’s decision. You accept the probable end of your leadership, the damage that will be done to your family’s welfare and the increased risk that the family’s children will be placed under, their loss of status and lowered future prospects for marriage, education and employment, by your non-interference.

Does the reality of this scenario change the way you would vote…?

Vote now.

2

I am willing to bet that several people, including Joker, will vote on this before they even know what they are voting on, simply because of the tantalising (or apparently tantalising) nature of the options.

3

:laughing: It seems they restrained themselves.

4

I voted C in the first poll, and D in this one. What do I win?

Nothing, as per usual. These online polls are all just a con.

5

The two scenarios are slightly different, and not only in the degree of detail. In the first scenario, my own death is not mentioned - just my downfall. In the second, it looks like my very life is on the line. That makes a difference. Also, in the first, I was charged with “training” the defector - and yes, the way the question is framed, it doesn’t appear to be toilet training.

I’d still go with A, but I wouldn’t be so happy about it.

I’m not sure why it would be a surprise that many would change their vote, however. That would not make them wrong in their first vote. Cost/benefit.

6

In all honesty regarding the OP, I had believed the defector to be the leaders wife…or one of them and that this WAS set in the ME. I’m seeing now that I should have added my rationale to my original vote. #-o

I NEVER would have guessed that it was the daughter! Good twist, Tab.

I would change my answer to “B”

The daughter is “damaged” goods and not worth the insult to the leader and tribe’s honor. Show both tribes how you roll and do it publicly to send that message to everyone.

My original answer was “C”…but that was me coming from a “Western” viewpoint that “Wifey” be shown some mercy and given an opportunity to (somewhat) decide her own fate. I see now that even in my original scenario, “C” would have brought too much humiliation to the leader and tribe and STILL could have resulted in a war…especially if her show of loyalty was to murder of maim her lover.

ETA: I don’t see how the leader’s henchman would get jail time…Doesn’t this tribe set it’s own rules? Is it against their rules to murder even when ordered from the leader? Just curious

7

Killing a perfect stranger is easy but killing one of your own family members is no easy task at all.

The ruthlessness of survival however causes you to be cold, calculated, and emotionless especially if your survival or others are jeopardized.

I would at first try to reason and dissuade her.

If that didn’t work I would threaten her still.

If that didn’t work she would leave me no choice but to exercise a public execution by that of stoning. I would take no pleasure in it but the survival of the group would necessitate it.

8

Fair enough, I removed the “your own death” bit. It’s still a possibility, but mainly an absolute worst-case scenario. Your point about ‘training and sponsorship’ vs. upbringing is less cut and dried however. Upbringing of girls in the East of where I live much more resembles training and social sponsorship than it does the more nurturing/educative traditions of the West. That I think can safely stand as is.

Sure, that is pretty much the point of the twin-threads. The usual Western response to breaking news stories of honour killings, especially of daughters by their own families is moral outrage, accusations of barbarism and stupidity, focussing on the individuals involved, and not the wider picture. “How can these bastards kill their own children…?” etc. The underlying purpose of the threads is show that honour killings, given the social enviroment they occur in, are logical, if still monstrous and deplorable acts.

The question for an extra gold-star however, is why do these barbarous social enviroments still persist given that places like Pakistan and India, and Turkey too for that matter, claim to be modern/reasonably enlightened democracies…?

I question your capability to kill your own daughter Faust. No offence, but I don’t think you’d be able to do it.

9

Well done for sussing it out.

I don’t believe you. You could really condemn your own daughter to death…? If you’ve no children of your own, then imagine your sister perhaps. If you’re an only child, then choose your best friend.

He’d probably go to jail, but honour killings are usually treated very leniently, and to spend time in jail in these matters is counted as an honourable thing in itself. Depending on how well-conected his family was however, it’s quite possible the case would never go to trial. It’s not that these extended families are laws unto themselves, it’s that the state and the police are so hopelessly intertwined with kinship-circles in the rural areas, that many people become effectively untouchable.

10

It would probably be difficult to kill one’s own child.

Less difficult for somebody nonrelated.

11

The most compassionate reply so far. Thanks James. No happy ending however. :cry:

12

Well now this is interesting…

I have been in almost that exact situation (but don’t ask for details). “Been there. Done that.”

I my case, due to a particular reasoning, at that time I chose your option “D”, non-interference and altruistic sacrifice of the group. But it wasn’t so simple as just giving up and letting everyone else suffer. I arranged that others would in fact not suffer greatly due to the ultimate decision, in fact be better off than they had started, and before the foreseeable occurrence of the betrayal. I was more instinctive clever in those days.

The reason that I did not attempt to prevent the event concerned the very purpose of the group to begin with as well as the need to step back and examine a more permanent fix for such a scenario. The thought of a everlasting struggle to thwart an inevitable invasion and the methods that would have to be invoked during such a struggle made the entire issue unworthy. At what point does someone decide that to live is just too costly for others?

It took years in my case to gain a clear picture of what possibly could have and should have been done, but at that time, without such knowledge, what I chose is still what I would recommend, “don’t reach for what is not within your grasp”, “don’t hold onto what is not holding onto you”, “avoid fighting a battle without a winning strategy”.

The ancient idea of “If you can’t beat them then Be them” was not very appealing to me. I don’t see the rationality in merely continuing disharmony merely to propagate a species of disharmony. So I had to step back and investigate alternatives. Fortunately I eventually found one, but unfortunately, I found that I was alone in realizing it (hence no group to prosper due to it).

So what the poll is really asking, from my perspective is what “should” a person do considering their ultimate goal in life. For many people, that is an easy decision because frankly they haven’t a clue as to what their actual ultimate goal really has always been. So the answers given will depend upon not merely the morals involved, but the goals or purpose involved.

By my newly formed strategy, the scenario would never occur, but if by miracle it did, option “C” would come into affect without the need of decision. As “the leader”,I would never have to face the decision as it is already built into the structure of governance.

13

Such is life filled with an abundance of no happy endings.

14

You win my undying gratitude. Thanks for your time SIATD. You’ve read a lot of history - how well up are you on the Middle East and Pakistan/India…? For me it’s like watching living fossils.

15

I confess that I could not answer the first situation. I didn’t like any of the answers, and I kept thinking, “there muse be some other option, tribal warfare is so wasteful!” I didn’t foresee the ‘twist’, but I am glad in retrospect that I didn’t answer. My answer now would be a solid D, but now the question is much better defined, and placed into the real world.

I don’t think the disparity in the way people respond before and after the switch is necessarily meaningful. You could create a lot of similar questions that elicit troublesome answers when you allow the hidden premises that are not clearly rational or humanist. Don’t you think theives should be punished? Of course you do. But surprise! these theives are abolitionists and the property in question is a slave. If you accept that women are property, that a society in which their sexuality is disgraceful, and killing as a way to restore honor, sure, the answers to the original question make sense. But personally, I reject those premises are nonsensical, and so even if the logic of what must follow from them is flawless, the result is still clearly insane.

16

Thanks for your thoughtful post JS. Same question to you as was to Faust:

“why do these barbarous social enviroments still persist given that places like Pakistan and India, and Turkey too for that matter, claim to be modern/reasonably enlightened democracies…?”

17

Ahhhh. I did not know that. But again, my resolution would remain the same, i think. given all. If it was my daughter, it would hurt more. Also, though, if fatherhood is different there than here, it’s difficult to imagine what “I” would do. It sounds as if it would be easier for the “real I” to choose A than for me.

Oh. I suppose. I’m not sure I’ve ever talked about this with a Westerner. Given what you have said, I’m not sure they are monstrous or deplorable. But then again, I’m a cold-hearted bastard.

I’m not sure how much democracy has to do with it. In the sense that 'the people" can change this? Okay. As for barbarous social environments, we have our own in the West.

Would I have to do it myself? And perhaps I would not be able to do it. It’s risk assessment. Again, there’s that “my own demise” thing. If my daughter was pointing a loaded gun at me, and i really thought she was going to shoot - that Turkish dad might think his daughter just as insane as I might think my own daughter. Or, he could be just as afraid. Or just as greedy for life.

It’s hard to say. Again, it’s not so easy for me to put myself in that Turk’s cultural milieu.

On the other hand, I’m not very quick to make moral judgments about members of a group I know little about. I have enough that happens in my home town to be shocked, disturbed and morally outraged about. I really don’t need to read the New York Sunday Times’ latest erudite, americanly-liberal, chin-scratching, fair-and-balanced editorial-as-hard-news article to learn more that I should be upset about in some place I have never been.

18

For the reasons that I already gave;

19

Hey Carleas, long time no virtual interaction etc. How’s life, in the unvirtual world…?

Anyway. You big chicken. The point of the original thread, and the rigid selection of answers is to put you in the position of having your solutions constrained by external forces. Sometimes you cannot sit on your hands and refuse to choose. The original is the real world, at least parts of it, albeit with the personal pronouns removed.

I think it is. With the obvious sentimental triggers removed, many of the knee-jerk “oh my God that’s disgusting” 's, with their accompanying feelings of moral superiority are dispensed with, and the rationalities beneath revealed. This thread, alone, without the build up, would probably have been just another Muslim-bashing-fest.

If you accept that women are property, that a society in which their sexuality is disgraceful, and killing as a way to restore honor, sure, the answers to the original question make sense. But personally, I reject those premises are nonsensical, and so even if the logic of what must follow from them is flawless, the result is still clearly insane.
[/quote]
You’re right. But so what…? This is the classic Western response: “Women are not property”. But then we can also argue happily “A piece of paper with a Dollar on it sign has no intrinsic value”. Except of course it is accepted in our society as having value. A woman is property equally then, if it is believed in X society that a woman is property. And all the outraged gasps and philosophic discussion will not alter the reality under which these women live.

“But personally” is simply a wince of distaste, and an implication of having better taste.

[-X

Same question as to Faust and JS:

“why do these barbarous social enviroments still persist given that places like Pakistan and India, and Turkey too for that matter, claim to be modern/reasonably enlightened democracies…?”

20

I’m sorry for being dense JS, but I do not see the relevancy of your answer.