The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/the-right-to-kill-brazil-infanticide/
58 comments
There is the idea of universal human rights that persists outside of the nation state. Trade is a major lever and failing that war. This is why NK wants nukes because then we can’t invade on concern over human rights. But yes there is a more ethical and moral path and some nations are more ethical/moral than others. Some argue that we have a duty to interfere and others follow the Star Trek prime directive as the guiding principal. A compromise in Brazil would be for the tribes to give the children up for adoption or to the State.
I think James Charles Napier said it best. When addressing the practice of sati (burning the wife to death on her husband’s funeral pyre), he responded to accusations of disrespecting local customs thusly:
> "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
An implicit premise in moral relativism is that part of our morality should be respecting other moral systems. As soon as you notice that, it becomes clear that we must use something other than relativism to base our morals on.
But answering this specific case does not require a complete theory of morality. Killing children is bad. End of moral analysis.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier
> "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
An implicit premise in moral relativism is that part of our morality should be respecting other moral systems. As soon as you notice that, it becomes clear that we must use something other than relativism to base our morals on.
But answering this specific case does not require a complete theory of morality. Killing children is bad. End of moral analysis.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier
> That was the “introduction in the Suruwaha’s symbolic universe of a possible resolution to a problem, in their lives, by means other than those under their control by traditional practices.”
There is the general point about how indegenous tribes are handled. As I understand from the article, they are set as communities that are independant from national and international laws, can keep their traditions and set their own rules.
But then there is all the “protection” layer where external influence is also shun, and people need government authorization to live with them.
I am confused/bothered as it looks like these tribes are treated like children (“we won’t let people taint you”) and grown ups (“do what you want at your own risks”) at the same time.
If they decide of their own rules, why shouldn’t they also decide by themselves what traditions to keep, what not to keep, and how they want to elvolve ?
There is the general point about how indegenous tribes are handled. As I understand from the article, they are set as communities that are independant from national and international laws, can keep their traditions and set their own rules.
But then there is all the “protection” layer where external influence is also shun, and people need government authorization to live with them.
I am confused/bothered as it looks like these tribes are treated like children (“we won’t let people taint you”) and grown ups (“do what you want at your own risks”) at the same time.
If they decide of their own rules, why shouldn’t they also decide by themselves what traditions to keep, what not to keep, and how they want to elvolve ?
It's very easy to reconcile the child/adult treatment:
If they wish to continue to follow traditional rules that lie outside what modern society accepts, they cannot be part of modern society.
If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world, they must reconcile their traditions with things like human rights.
You might argue that China is not following human rights and they are a major player internally,but these tribes do not wield power like China does, and would be powerless against Brazilian authorities.
A good question, however, is who gets to make that deciSoon to include or exclude these tribes from modern society.
If they wish to continue to follow traditional rules that lie outside what modern society accepts, they cannot be part of modern society.
If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world, they must reconcile their traditions with things like human rights.
You might argue that China is not following human rights and they are a major player internally,but these tribes do not wield power like China does, and would be powerless against Brazilian authorities.
A good question, however, is who gets to make that deciSoon to include or exclude these tribes from modern society.
> If they want to trade, share ideas and generally meet with the rest of the world
From what I get, they don't want that.
In a sense I am fine with their reclusion, what's bugging me is the enforcement of a status quo in regard to their tradition.
Even without external influence, it should evolve, and rules should naturally adapt to their environment. I mean, even their current tradition didn't fall fully formed from the sky, and some of the reasoning behind it is explained clearly (for instance population control). They must have started from a pragmatic point of view to build these traditions, and it seems the thinking process behind these just vanished or got "vanished" by people with an agenda going beyond preserving culture.
I am thinking about the mormons, who aren't as secluse, but also think by themselves about what they want to ingest and what they won't embrace. Nobody's there saying "you don't have the right to go see mormons and tell them things, it would disturb them".
From what I get, they don't want that.
In a sense I am fine with their reclusion, what's bugging me is the enforcement of a status quo in regard to their tradition.
Even without external influence, it should evolve, and rules should naturally adapt to their environment. I mean, even their current tradition didn't fall fully formed from the sky, and some of the reasoning behind it is explained clearly (for instance population control). They must have started from a pragmatic point of view to build these traditions, and it seems the thinking process behind these just vanished or got "vanished" by people with an agenda going beyond preserving culture.
I am thinking about the mormons, who aren't as secluse, but also think by themselves about what they want to ingest and what they won't embrace. Nobody's there saying "you don't have the right to go see mormons and tell them things, it would disturb them".
The other big question is the role of the individual in these societies.
If we are not relativistic about ethics we might think that being born in a society doesn't have to determine the way you live forever. This is a big can of worms.
The simpler solution we know of is the Paradox of Tolerance, and regarding tolerance itself as more important than, for example, preserving tradition.
If we are not relativistic about ethics we might think that being born in a society doesn't have to determine the way you live forever. This is a big can of worms.
The simpler solution we know of is the Paradox of Tolerance, and regarding tolerance itself as more important than, for example, preserving tradition.
This is human zoo. We see that culture, and our approach to certain instances of it is inherently oppressive. We had cultures similar to that of the indigenous peoples' back in the old world until relatively recently. But because we have a certain fascination with these exotic "species" of people, we negate them the modern life, way better than theirs in every objective measure. We entitle ourselves to the "preservation" of their cultures, which means a) we believe that we are enough better off than them that we can assume that role and b) needing protection means that their culture is insustainable and bound to extinguish already. It's cruel to think that we should allow these people to suffer because it's an interesting spectacle for the scientists, while we enjoy increasingly free and individualist societies.
We do the same with languages: we try to preserve languages that only a handful people speak because it's interesting to us that those few hundred speak a dying language, while we enjoy using languages that allow us to communicate to millions, if not billions of other people.
Culture is a nice thing to remember, but just like we mostly dumped it for the modern life for the latter is objectively better, we should allow these people to do the same too. Otherwise, it is human zoo.
We do the same with languages: we try to preserve languages that only a handful people speak because it's interesting to us that those few hundred speak a dying language, while we enjoy using languages that allow us to communicate to millions, if not billions of other people.
Culture is a nice thing to remember, but just like we mostly dumped it for the modern life for the latter is objectively better, we should allow these people to do the same too. Otherwise, it is human zoo.
[deleted]
I'm not sure that I enjoy the idea of communicating with millions or billions of people. That's not why I use the language I use.
The incidental fact that I share a common language with certain other individuals of high status, isn't why I speak this language. Would that I could choose another language, would that be the reason to choose it?
If that's true, certainly there are people with more than me, operating at higher status in other languages, so why don't I simply open doors for myself and choose to learn one of those languages?
(hint: you can't just walk up to someone and kick it to them, not in any language; there are more rules to the equation, and they are neither trivial nor obvious; I mean look at how I'm disagreeing with you right now, and in your own language, no less!)
The reality is that, all I really get from this language is a the house and food that keeps me going. The quantity of people I could theoretically interact with isn't a benefit, because the quality of people I could possibly interect with is much lower than the peaks and unicorns of whatever metric you might use to chart the value of social interaction in an objective manner, which, by the way, is conceptually repugnant to me.
So, preserving a dying language, what's that worth? Well, in the sense of using selective breeding to artificially create stunted or distorted animals as curiosities for entertainment, yeah, it seems ethically distasteful to force A child to learn esperanto, without an endgame in mind, other than for the purpose of injecting an artificial sense of nostalgia into a custom that will never see practical use. Under the hood, the mechanics of this almost translate to wasting a child's time as investment in future emotional blackmail.
So, then, to look at that idea as a corrolary to preserving and forcing an enclave to remain isolated and backwards because it's so quaint. Or perhaps because it serves as a visceral teaching tool, to demonstrate an interactive example of human existence that predates certain discoveries. What does that really mean?
Does blocking access to modernity mean, if not so much (outsiders blocking said access) for the mature members of a primitive clan within an isolated tribe, then moreso it means permitting those older members to engage in what is effectively child abuse. All this transpiring as they foster a new generation of children who will grow up without refridgerators and freezers, and effectively be restricted from knowing the delight of ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream?
What could have been? What would we see, as we watch these children blossom into adults (as modern citizens of the global village), were it not for our morbid fascination with the primitive cultures of indigenous peoples? On the one hand, children raised in mud huts could certainly do without the tape worms and eye infections that leave some of them blind, malnourished and half-starved. And what of all the patently wrong misinformation of superstition and ritual? But then again, the hollow, selfish emptiness of modernity, and the auto-immune problems, endocrine disorders and psychiatric medication required to cope with the cognitive dissonance of living beneath an RFID geolocated surveillance ad tech apparatus designed by quantitative economists leaves something to be desired, so where's the goldilocks zone in all this?
The incidental fact that I share a common language with certain other individuals of high status, isn't why I speak this language. Would that I could choose another language, would that be the reason to choose it?
If that's true, certainly there are people with more than me, operating at higher status in other languages, so why don't I simply open doors for myself and choose to learn one of those languages?
(hint: you can't just walk up to someone and kick it to them, not in any language; there are more rules to the equation, and they are neither trivial nor obvious; I mean look at how I'm disagreeing with you right now, and in your own language, no less!)
The reality is that, all I really get from this language is a the house and food that keeps me going. The quantity of people I could theoretically interact with isn't a benefit, because the quality of people I could possibly interect with is much lower than the peaks and unicorns of whatever metric you might use to chart the value of social interaction in an objective manner, which, by the way, is conceptually repugnant to me.
So, preserving a dying language, what's that worth? Well, in the sense of using selective breeding to artificially create stunted or distorted animals as curiosities for entertainment, yeah, it seems ethically distasteful to force A child to learn esperanto, without an endgame in mind, other than for the purpose of injecting an artificial sense of nostalgia into a custom that will never see practical use. Under the hood, the mechanics of this almost translate to wasting a child's time as investment in future emotional blackmail.
So, then, to look at that idea as a corrolary to preserving and forcing an enclave to remain isolated and backwards because it's so quaint. Or perhaps because it serves as a visceral teaching tool, to demonstrate an interactive example of human existence that predates certain discoveries. What does that really mean?
Does blocking access to modernity mean, if not so much (outsiders blocking said access) for the mature members of a primitive clan within an isolated tribe, then moreso it means permitting those older members to engage in what is effectively child abuse. All this transpiring as they foster a new generation of children who will grow up without refridgerators and freezers, and effectively be restricted from knowing the delight of ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake? Children's ice cream?
What could have been? What would we see, as we watch these children blossom into adults (as modern citizens of the global village), were it not for our morbid fascination with the primitive cultures of indigenous peoples? On the one hand, children raised in mud huts could certainly do without the tape worms and eye infections that leave some of them blind, malnourished and half-starved. And what of all the patently wrong misinformation of superstition and ritual? But then again, the hollow, selfish emptiness of modernity, and the auto-immune problems, endocrine disorders and psychiatric medication required to cope with the cognitive dissonance of living beneath an RFID geolocated surveillance ad tech apparatus designed by quantitative economists leaves something to be desired, so where's the goldilocks zone in all this?
BTW, as an addendum, I wrote this as a pure response to the parent comment, without RTFA, and the original HN title of the submission was that of the article itself (The Right to Kill) didn't disclose that this was specifically an article WRT murder as a crime of passion, since framing an idea as a Right is more abstract, whether the victims are children or not.
Moral relativism aside, the more civilized approach to produce an effect of nearly the same outcome as murder, is exile.
This is an option that was explored and proven successful by ancient and medieval societies across the globe. When something unforgivable and unforgettable happens, those responsible may be banished instead of executed, and in a civilization of unlimited resources, dungeon-like conditions need not be a term of excommunication.
But, within the context of a scenario like this, where the sterility of contact with the outside world is, in fact, a prerquisite to the concept at hand, the approach to handle the preservation of alien customs apart from society at large demands elaborate effort.
Beyond adopting the effort to carry out what amounts to a charade, one still needs to seek a rational basis for the effort. Why bother? Why should one tread lightly when maybe the life of a child is at stake?
The handy answer is because we can. We can have it both ways. The primitive culture can be preserved, if a channel of willful exile is opened, as an alternative to murder. And having it both ways affords the option of live and let live, which is better.
Perspective may say that this condones something akin to honor killing, as mitigated circumstances, sometimes you have to cut your losses and look at what you still have left.
It would require a carefully designed protocol, to handle the exfiltration of exiled tribal citizens that primitive clans rejected for perceived crimes, but it could be done. Is it worth the effort? I think a quantitative analyst would question how much it costs, and the answer is that it's probably quite affordable.
Moral relativism aside, the more civilized approach to produce an effect of nearly the same outcome as murder, is exile.
This is an option that was explored and proven successful by ancient and medieval societies across the globe. When something unforgivable and unforgettable happens, those responsible may be banished instead of executed, and in a civilization of unlimited resources, dungeon-like conditions need not be a term of excommunication.
But, within the context of a scenario like this, where the sterility of contact with the outside world is, in fact, a prerquisite to the concept at hand, the approach to handle the preservation of alien customs apart from society at large demands elaborate effort.
Beyond adopting the effort to carry out what amounts to a charade, one still needs to seek a rational basis for the effort. Why bother? Why should one tread lightly when maybe the life of a child is at stake?
The handy answer is because we can. We can have it both ways. The primitive culture can be preserved, if a channel of willful exile is opened, as an alternative to murder. And having it both ways affords the option of live and let live, which is better.
Perspective may say that this condones something akin to honor killing, as mitigated circumstances, sometimes you have to cut your losses and look at what you still have left.
It would require a carefully designed protocol, to handle the exfiltration of exiled tribal citizens that primitive clans rejected for perceived crimes, but it could be done. Is it worth the effort? I think a quantitative analyst would question how much it costs, and the answer is that it's probably quite affordable.
Responding to both of your comments here:
It seems to me that generally we agree. But I want to clarify one bit: I don't advocate a monocultural/monolingual life. English is my L2, I also have an L3, and more a coming. My main argument was that if something required preservation efforts, it's by definition moribund. In deciding whether or not to try to revive a thing that needs preservation (including the environment, cultures, languages, traditions, etc.), I think that we should take a pragmatic approach: preserving the ecosystem is useful to us, so do it. Preserving a language with a 100 or so speakers with other means than making recordings, analysing it etc., e.g. trying to teach it to kids or adults, is basically impractical, and generally useless. Same with a culture that is detrimental to life in every way. If we think it's interesting, we can document it. But we should help the actual people out of primitive life.
The "emptiness of modern life" is nothing more than a poetical, romantic little sorrow in comparison to being killed for being a twin, or for being born to the wrong mother, or for being slightly disabled. I'm more than 100% sure that a starving kid in Africa or most of these tribespeople would take the "emptines of modern life" over whatever they have without giving it a second thought.
It seems to me that generally we agree. But I want to clarify one bit: I don't advocate a monocultural/monolingual life. English is my L2, I also have an L3, and more a coming. My main argument was that if something required preservation efforts, it's by definition moribund. In deciding whether or not to try to revive a thing that needs preservation (including the environment, cultures, languages, traditions, etc.), I think that we should take a pragmatic approach: preserving the ecosystem is useful to us, so do it. Preserving a language with a 100 or so speakers with other means than making recordings, analysing it etc., e.g. trying to teach it to kids or adults, is basically impractical, and generally useless. Same with a culture that is detrimental to life in every way. If we think it's interesting, we can document it. But we should help the actual people out of primitive life.
The "emptiness of modern life" is nothing more than a poetical, romantic little sorrow in comparison to being killed for being a twin, or for being born to the wrong mother, or for being slightly disabled. I'm more than 100% sure that a starving kid in Africa or most of these tribespeople would take the "emptines of modern life" over whatever they have without giving it a second thought.
Brazil was under a military dictatorship until 1985 where those wanting democracy were imprisoned, tortured and killed. Over the past four years we have seen what started as a minor investigation into corruption turn into a judicial coup, overturning governments the people are voting for - the judges ousted Lula, then their process led to the ousting of Rousseff, who herself was tortured during the dictatorship. You also now have major voices hinting or calling for a return to dictatorship.
You also have well-funded extrajudicial efforts by mining interests massacring Indians, organizers, rural workers or anyone who gets in the way of mining interests. Many uncontacted Indians are being killed, yes - by well-funded mining interests.
In the midst of this, we hear nonsense about the legal system which just overturned Brazilian democracy and which won't provide adequate funding for protecting Indians from mining company slaughter, wading into the Amazon to, in its benevolence, sort out what are probably seen as mercy killings of children who can't survive in that environment and will be leading a life of suffering. Often due to the circumstances caused by the mining companies trying to kill them. It's the height of hubris and hypocrisy that Foreign Policy, which itself has justified more bloodshed than any magazine, sees fit to try to bestow this mantle into itself.
You also have well-funded extrajudicial efforts by mining interests massacring Indians, organizers, rural workers or anyone who gets in the way of mining interests. Many uncontacted Indians are being killed, yes - by well-funded mining interests.
In the midst of this, we hear nonsense about the legal system which just overturned Brazilian democracy and which won't provide adequate funding for protecting Indians from mining company slaughter, wading into the Amazon to, in its benevolence, sort out what are probably seen as mercy killings of children who can't survive in that environment and will be leading a life of suffering. Often due to the circumstances caused by the mining companies trying to kill them. It's the height of hubris and hypocrisy that Foreign Policy, which itself has justified more bloodshed than any magazine, sees fit to try to bestow this mantle into itself.
Thank you for pointing out the wider context for this debate, you beat me to it. The level of hypocrisy on view in Brazil regarding this issue is breathtaking: implicit acceptance of what amounts to genocide on the one hand, while prosecuting its victims on the other. Given the attitude that Brazil has had historically toward its indigenous population, one would think they would be _encouraging_ infanticide -- it saves mining and lumber companies the cost of ammunition to shoot folks, after all.
The best option here would be to employ applied anthropologists in partnership with anthropologically-aware medical practitioners and demonstrate that disabled children can be cared for, in ways that are culturally compatible with local belief systems. However, this would need to be part of a multi-pronged campaign to recognize the equality and autonomy of native peoples, things which so-called "civilized" populations seem incapable of grasping.
This isn't an either/or issue; "culture" should not be misunderstood as some sort of monolithic edifice that you either accept or reject. There's room for debate and compromise on everything, and the dissent reported within tribes regarding infanticide is emblematic of this. As long as medical practices are presented in ways that respect local communities, it is surprising how well partnerships can be forged between "Western" and indigenous customs. These cultures don't have to "stop," and its clear from the text that not every member of these communities agrees with the practice of infanticide. Approach people with respect, provide information in a manner that fits into their perspective of the world rather than imposing one's own, and work together to find a compromise position that doesn't require killing children. Change is a basic ingredient in all cultural systems. Easy? Of course not, but it can be done.
And to those explicitly or implicitly stating that Amazonia peoples are cruel, barbaric, inhumane, and don't deserve to exist because of the way disabled children are treated, as an American I can point to the way in which my own culture allows children to suffer and die of malnutrition or poor health. Heck, look at how much Michigan's state government cared about children in its territory drinking leaded tapwater. At least the tribespeople described in the article give "inconvenient" children a relatively quick death, rather than letting them linger with life-long brain damage and other maladies as we do here [1].
[1] Hyperbolic Swiftian analogy. Author does not endorse killing people in general, let alone killing children, okay?
The best option here would be to employ applied anthropologists in partnership with anthropologically-aware medical practitioners and demonstrate that disabled children can be cared for, in ways that are culturally compatible with local belief systems. However, this would need to be part of a multi-pronged campaign to recognize the equality and autonomy of native peoples, things which so-called "civilized" populations seem incapable of grasping.
This isn't an either/or issue; "culture" should not be misunderstood as some sort of monolithic edifice that you either accept or reject. There's room for debate and compromise on everything, and the dissent reported within tribes regarding infanticide is emblematic of this. As long as medical practices are presented in ways that respect local communities, it is surprising how well partnerships can be forged between "Western" and indigenous customs. These cultures don't have to "stop," and its clear from the text that not every member of these communities agrees with the practice of infanticide. Approach people with respect, provide information in a manner that fits into their perspective of the world rather than imposing one's own, and work together to find a compromise position that doesn't require killing children. Change is a basic ingredient in all cultural systems. Easy? Of course not, but it can be done.
And to those explicitly or implicitly stating that Amazonia peoples are cruel, barbaric, inhumane, and don't deserve to exist because of the way disabled children are treated, as an American I can point to the way in which my own culture allows children to suffer and die of malnutrition or poor health. Heck, look at how much Michigan's state government cared about children in its territory drinking leaded tapwater. At least the tribespeople described in the article give "inconvenient" children a relatively quick death, rather than letting them linger with life-long brain damage and other maladies as we do here [1].
[1] Hyperbolic Swiftian analogy. Author does not endorse killing people in general, let alone killing children, okay?
This is reminiscent of the controversy over male and female circumcision (or "genital mutilation" as it's sometimes termed). Clearly some traditions and religions consider these practices to be not only acceptable but sometimes even necessary for religious or cultural reasons.
There are also some parallels to honor killings and "suttee", a practice among some in South and Southeast Asia in which a widow burns herself to death on her husband's funeral pyre. Once again, both are traditional practices, with religious and/or cultural sanction.
Finally, many societies have practiced human sacrifice. Recently in the news there was a story about an ancient mass burial of sacrificed children being found (I believe it might have been in Brazil actually).
Most "modern", "enlightened" or "civilized" societies have tried to stamp out such practices, and this action has often not favorably viewed by the societies which are forced to stop their traditional practices.
There is definitely an ethical dilemma here for people who believe we should tolerate the practices of other cultures.
There are also some parallels to honor killings and "suttee", a practice among some in South and Southeast Asia in which a widow burns herself to death on her husband's funeral pyre. Once again, both are traditional practices, with religious and/or cultural sanction.
Finally, many societies have practiced human sacrifice. Recently in the news there was a story about an ancient mass burial of sacrificed children being found (I believe it might have been in Brazil actually).
Most "modern", "enlightened" or "civilized" societies have tried to stamp out such practices, and this action has often not favorably viewed by the societies which are forced to stop their traditional practices.
There is definitely an ethical dilemma here for people who believe we should tolerate the practices of other cultures.
Just throwing an idea out there: how about faking the child's death, smuggling them out and putting them up for adoption in mainstream Brazilian society?
This brings many obvious problems, but seems to allow us to have the cake and eat it too.
How about death to parent's who allow this, and instead they can just drop their kid off at the nearest hospital, fire department, police, etc? Plenty of people in the world would be for adopting these kids, it's assinine that there is even a discussion on whether any human should be allowed to kill another because of tradition.
Better the tribe and their traditions cease to exist, than blatant child murder continues to go unpunished.
I'm all for the prime directive in a space-faring society, to namely not let the people even know 'we' exist, but this is totally different. They are aware of us, as we are of them, and this is the same planet, which we all co-habitate and there's geneva conventions and human rights that ALL humans must have, regardless of where they are born into.
Better the tribe and their traditions cease to exist, than blatant child murder continues to go unpunished.
I'm all for the prime directive in a space-faring society, to namely not let the people even know 'we' exist, but this is totally different. They are aware of us, as we are of them, and this is the same planet, which we all co-habitate and there's geneva conventions and human rights that ALL humans must have, regardless of where they are born into.
[deleted]
Yes. If they wanna life the conforts of a modern society they should obey the country laws as well.
And since abortions are not allowed in brazilian law, as well infanticide, and higienization killings, so they should no be allowed to kill their kids.
And since abortions are not allowed in brazilian law, as well infanticide, and higienization killings, so they should no be allowed to kill their kids.
> In other words, according to Almeida’s report, the Suzukis had done irreparable damage to the Suruwaha way of life by showing that certain physical disabilities didn’t necessitate killing.
[...]
> Because of what happened to Hakani, Suzuki says, other parents began to seek help. In 2005, two Suruwaha families requested medical assistance for their children.
[...]
> "You abandon us, you pretend we’re invisible, since we’re way out there in the middle of the jungle. You pretend that we’re nothing and use the culture excuse. I ask you one more time to rethink that. We’re here.… We’re screaming for help. We’re screaming for rights."
[...]
> Because of what happened to Hakani, Suzuki says, other parents began to seek help. In 2005, two Suruwaha families requested medical assistance for their children.
[...]
> "You abandon us, you pretend we’re invisible, since we’re way out there in the middle of the jungle. You pretend that we’re nothing and use the culture excuse. I ask you one more time to rethink that. We’re here.… We’re screaming for help. We’re screaming for rights."
Nevermind.
I disagree. Rather than have the Brazilian government use coercion and 'haul them out' it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out. It's clear many within that community don't agree with this already (like the parents who committed suicide rather than kill their children) and if they could know they could escape that would preferable than forcing views on to other people.
What if our views change about this in the future? Then should they be forced to kill their children even though they don't want to? I know that sounds insane but this happens. There's the classic example of when British colonialists were horrified that homosexuality was not considered a crime in India and they introduced a new law. Well here in the UK that view has completely changed but India still has the law (although it's not enforced), now should we go and tell them they're bad again and force them to change it back? No, they need to understand for themselves and do it themselves. Interference in this way is not a good idea, it just builds resentment. This is true for any argument, rather than force people to do it your way, let them realize on their own why your way is the better way.
Also I don't see why them not being able survive in modern warfare matters. Canada wouldn't survive in modern warfare against the USA but that doesn't mean the Canadians be hauled out. ISIS could be destroyed today by nuking the towns they are in but that would kill innocent people too. If you think coercion is wrong why not apply it consistently. Remember also that if you want them to stop killing their disabled children then someone will have to pay for them, probably Brazilian tax payers, are they willing to do that, also that starts a whole other debate about aborting of disabled children too, this is a hugely complex issue and hauling anyone out to impose one view I think is not necessarily the best way. I would advocate providing support to those who want out of the tribe.
What if our views change about this in the future? Then should they be forced to kill their children even though they don't want to? I know that sounds insane but this happens. There's the classic example of when British colonialists were horrified that homosexuality was not considered a crime in India and they introduced a new law. Well here in the UK that view has completely changed but India still has the law (although it's not enforced), now should we go and tell them they're bad again and force them to change it back? No, they need to understand for themselves and do it themselves. Interference in this way is not a good idea, it just builds resentment. This is true for any argument, rather than force people to do it your way, let them realize on their own why your way is the better way.
Also I don't see why them not being able survive in modern warfare matters. Canada wouldn't survive in modern warfare against the USA but that doesn't mean the Canadians be hauled out. ISIS could be destroyed today by nuking the towns they are in but that would kill innocent people too. If you think coercion is wrong why not apply it consistently. Remember also that if you want them to stop killing their disabled children then someone will have to pay for them, probably Brazilian tax payers, are they willing to do that, also that starts a whole other debate about aborting of disabled children too, this is a hugely complex issue and hauling anyone out to impose one view I think is not necessarily the best way. I would advocate providing support to those who want out of the tribe.
”it is better to let those within that community know there is a way out and offer help to those who want to get out.”
So, how are you going to let newborns with a disability know there is a way out before their society kills them?
If you think letting the parents know is sufficient, you’re at odds with much of modern thinking, which says it can be necessary to take children out of the care of their parents.
Also, suppose the would-be victim suspects what’s coming and wants to get out, but doesn’t manage to escape, would you punish the killers? If so, you’re interfering with another nation’s sovereignty.
As always when fundamental rights collide, there is no easy answer to this.
So, how are you going to let newborns with a disability know there is a way out before their society kills them?
If you think letting the parents know is sufficient, you’re at odds with much of modern thinking, which says it can be necessary to take children out of the care of their parents.
Also, suppose the would-be victim suspects what’s coming and wants to get out, but doesn’t manage to escape, would you punish the killers? If so, you’re interfering with another nation’s sovereignty.
As always when fundamental rights collide, there is no easy answer to this.
But it would turn into some kind of "eugenics experiment" then, where you have a pool of genes that evolves naturally, except the bad genes are moved to an external population.
On the one hand, I'd like to see humans continue to evolve naturally, far into the future. But this approach seems a little weird.
On the one hand, I'd like to see humans continue to evolve naturally, far into the future. But this approach seems a little weird.
[deleted]
Arguments here have to also reconcile with arguments used in the discussion on Belgium's child euthanasia rights.
are you refering to this ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26181615
> Under the Dutch conditions, a patient's request for euthanasia can be fulfilled by a doctor if the request is "voluntary and well-considered" and the patient is suffering unbearably, with no prospect of improvement.
These are conditions that are not fulfilled in the case of the traditional killing done by the tribes.
> Under the Dutch conditions, a patient's request for euthanasia can be fulfilled by a doctor if the request is "voluntary and well-considered" and the patient is suffering unbearably, with no prospect of improvement.
These are conditions that are not fulfilled in the case of the traditional killing done by the tribes.
The West does this with down syndrome. In the UK apparently 90% of pregnancies with prenatally diagnosed Down syndrome are terminated. (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-... for example)
Killing a child, or any conscious being willing to live, cannot be compared to terminating a pregnancy at a point where the embryo is just a blob of cells with no global survival instinct and consciousness whatsoever (just basic biochemistry-powered defensive reactions at cellular level).
It's ridiculous making such mental gymnastics to stretch this article in order to blame "the West".
It's ridiculous making such mental gymnastics to stretch this article in order to blame "the West".
At what point is a child imbued with consciousness and a will to live? Who should be responsible for that determination?
While the line drawing fallacy certainly comes into play here, one can with some confidence say that /before a single neuron is formed/ is most certainly a safe spot to point at and say “not yet.”
I didn't quickly find a definitive answer about the time the first neuron forms, but some brief searching around seems to indicate the neurons are already assembling into complex structures before 5 weeks.
So it seems like development of the first neuron would be well before that, and not a very practically-useful line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_bra...
So it seems like development of the first neuron would be well before that, and not a very practically-useful line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_bra...
I used the phrase "the West" because the practice happens in the US, but is more common in Europe.
The analogy stems from an instrumentalist view of what it means to be human and the expectations parents have that children are for their own pleasure. IE: a down syndrome life isn't worth living because such a person can't be a meaningfully productive member of society, or a down syndrome child isn't one I want to have because of the long-term burden I will have to bear.
It's not mental gymnastics to make that connection. The only reason it isn't obvious is because abortion is a taboo subject.
FWIW a 10 week old fetus is a lot more than a "blob of cells": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sivegxcp2Bk .
The analogy stems from an instrumentalist view of what it means to be human and the expectations parents have that children are for their own pleasure. IE: a down syndrome life isn't worth living because such a person can't be a meaningfully productive member of society, or a down syndrome child isn't one I want to have because of the long-term burden I will have to bear.
It's not mental gymnastics to make that connection. The only reason it isn't obvious is because abortion is a taboo subject.
FWIW a 10 week old fetus is a lot more than a "blob of cells": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sivegxcp2Bk .
While a 10 week old fetus is not a blob of cells, having some major structures forming and hinting at their definitive shape, the brain is still very little more than autonomic functions.
Also, there are a multitude of reasons why a couple would want to terminate a pregnancy for a genetic anomaly, from the social burden to the financial burden or the notion that their child with a congenital condition will not lead a life they deem worth living. At this point, when the fetus is not a person just yet, it's their choice to make.
Would you have a child knowing they'd be condemned to a premature and painful death?
Also, there are a multitude of reasons why a couple would want to terminate a pregnancy for a genetic anomaly, from the social burden to the financial burden or the notion that their child with a congenital condition will not lead a life they deem worth living. At this point, when the fetus is not a person just yet, it's their choice to make.
Would you have a child knowing they'd be condemned to a premature and painful death?
At least be honest that you are implicitly stating an opinion that abortion at 9-15 weeks is equivalent to infanticide.
I actually do see a parallel, but it's the opposite of the one you're talking about. Refusing to abort a fetus with Down syndrome comes from the same sort of squeamishness and relativism as refusing to condemn an indigenous culture. It is condemning people to suffer out of some misguided attempt to be understanding and compassionate. It is an overreaction to horrors of the past. It is combating arrogance and elitism with relativism. Refusing to say that people with Down syndrome shouldn't be born is similar to refusing to admit that some cultures should be destroyed.
Maybe that's a stretch.
But you actually bring up a good alternative: abortion. We can easily detect some of these situations (single mothers, twins, and certain disabilities) early in pregnancy. Maybe offering abortions would discourage killing children?
Maybe that's a stretch.
But you actually bring up a good alternative: abortion. We can easily detect some of these situations (single mothers, twins, and certain disabilities) early in pregnancy. Maybe offering abortions would discourage killing children?
[deleted]
It's easier to judge small tribes as being backwards than to look at ourselves and see the backwardness, and that we're really not any different.
Just how on Earth have you inferred this statement from the OP or from the parent's comment? Have you read either?
The HN guidelines [0] are actually a remarkably good set of principles for online discussion of challenging topics.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something ... Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.” ... Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
The standard of care each of us puts into each of our own responses is what makes HN-quality conversations possible or impossible.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something ... Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.” ... Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
The standard of care each of us puts into each of our own responses is what makes HN-quality conversations possible or impossible.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"cultural relativity" phrase probably wasn't intended to justify "anything is OK"...
so anything is "OK" as long as it has "tradition"? A mafia mob family with a "tradition" in killing ppl around is OK because it's "tradition"?
What's next? Claiming that Nazi killing was a "cultural thing"?
so anything is "OK" as long as it has "tradition"? A mafia mob family with a "tradition" in killing ppl around is OK because it's "tradition"?
What's next? Claiming that Nazi killing was a "cultural thing"?
What’s so cruel with the situation is that there are middle paths, for instance the tribe banning members it doesn’t want instead of killing them, and the rest of the society adopting them (like what happens with the Suzuki couple).
It seems like a good compromise, but there is all that “traditions must be protected” mantra, coming from outside these tribes, that brings massive inertia.
It seems like a good compromise, but there is all that “traditions must be protected” mantra, coming from outside these tribes, that brings massive inertia.
Nazi killing was cultural thing, quite literally. Also, they were not independently living group of people killing among themselves, Germans attacked nearby countries. They were threat to everyone else, Nazism was not some kind of cruel internal thing.
That comparison does not work at all, regardless of whether you think tribes should be left to do what they do or not.
That comparison does not work at all, regardless of whether you think tribes should be left to do what they do or not.
I guess it only applies to traditional cultures, which the Nazis weren’t.
Completely made-up and arbitrary though, so the justification is just shifted somewhere else - the "reason" is none. It's like explaining anything with "higher forces", all it is is not explaining anything at all, instead putting the issue under the rug or on the shelve of "stuff we just accept without giving it any more thoughts". Which I think is actually okay depending on the context, since every human does it to a large extend out of necessity. Only when it extends to preventing others from looking deeper does it become a problem. Here it's a problem when it's used to set standards used to justify how to treat different people.
I proofread the Ph.D. thesis of a friend of mine who wrote on transfer of organizational culture. The example was Western companies doing business in countries with a different culture. To cut a very long story short, the conclusion (well-supported by the evidence he had collected) was that instead of accepting the local culture at least in the examples he had looked the ones that succeeded by a big margin were those who imposed their own values from their home organization. The "details" matter of course: What did not work was imposing those values. He found that what worked best was to take a number of core people, bring them back to the country of the source culture and let them work there for a time and absorb the organization's culture (an active process, and that culture must be attractive and demonstrably be successful, or why would anyone want to adopt it in the first place). Then let these people build the new business. Don't give them direct supervision, i.e. no boss(es) from the source organization. Well, there are a few hundred more pages, but my point is that trying to always accept all kinds of cultures as the "best" way is just not true. We humans have "transferred cultures", often by force, for a million years, and in the realm of nature keeping everything as it is, forever, is not exactly a proven success story or how anything works.
I proofread the Ph.D. thesis of a friend of mine who wrote on transfer of organizational culture. The example was Western companies doing business in countries with a different culture. To cut a very long story short, the conclusion (well-supported by the evidence he had collected) was that instead of accepting the local culture at least in the examples he had looked the ones that succeeded by a big margin were those who imposed their own values from their home organization. The "details" matter of course: What did not work was imposing those values. He found that what worked best was to take a number of core people, bring them back to the country of the source culture and let them work there for a time and absorb the organization's culture (an active process, and that culture must be attractive and demonstrably be successful, or why would anyone want to adopt it in the first place). Then let these people build the new business. Don't give them direct supervision, i.e. no boss(es) from the source organization. Well, there are a few hundred more pages, but my point is that trying to always accept all kinds of cultures as the "best" way is just not true. We humans have "transferred cultures", often by force, for a million years, and in the realm of nature keeping everything as it is, forever, is not exactly a proven success story or how anything works.
grrtb(1)
The situation in Brazil is not all that different, ethical-relativity-wise, than the situation between, say, Iran and Finland. Iranian law requires capital punishment for many behaviors which Finland (which has outlawed the death penalty altogether) would not consider illegal or forbidden in any way.
There is a big difference in degree between those kinds of situations--size of community, scale of killing, et cetera--but the same fundamental questions emerge from both:
Are some communities codes (laws) "more ethical" than others? In other words: fiating that morality exists as a qualifiable (if hard to qualify in an agreed-upon way) thing, is it also quantifiable?
If so, are the "more ethical" communities morally allowed (or obligated, even) to encourage/demand that "less ethical" communities change their codes?
If that is so, is there a difference-in-degree below which "more/less ethical" becomes meaningless--i.e. is "group A sacrifices Emacs users to the Vim-dragon every day, but group B only makes the sacrifices on the day of the full moon; therefore group B is necessarily more humane" an instance of progress via incrementalism or false virtuosity?
What role does the massive power imbalance between the "more ethical" state in this instance (Brazil) and the "less ethical" groups (indigenous/isolated communities) play in determining how the conflict should be resolved? For example, if child-killing was practiced, say, by a large nation-state and the USA decided that, due to this practice, it would impose US law on that nation-state by force, would the situation be any different?*
* given the US's justification for some of its past wars, this is less than hypothetical.
Edits: typos.