Christopher:

Humanist thinking puts people at the top of the agenda. It's not a magical mandate, it is a choice to act and think for others and happiness. I value others and everyone's happiness, therefore it makes sense for me to endorse humanism. (Whereas you choose to endorse natural selection at the cost of the weaker people, like children.) I am not an absolutist. I have argued here at Daylight Atheism that moral relativism does not self-contradict and that morality is subjective. Even with relativism, that does not stop me from from having my own perspective, my own frame of reference, built upon my personal values. Fact is, most people share to some degree in my values, and so it makes sense for us to talk about other things from this perspective. Hence I can agree with Ebonmuse that the practice of child marriage is indeed heinous. (According to the MW dictionary, heinous means something that is shocking and causes harm. Do you agree with me that child marriage is heinous?) Also, according to my own perspective, I should "impose" my morality on others - because that is the only way to effect more happiness and less suffering in the world. Would you impose your own morality on a murderer that is attacking you by defending yourself? Would defending yourself be a form of arrogance? It's a similar situation here - but we are defending the weak from the oppressive strong.

"See, my guess is, he's a college freshman who took his first philosophy class/just read Ayn Rand - I think it's the random use of quotes that gives it away. But, yeah, only someone at the top of the heap worries about "morals" and "laws" "oppressing" his right to "rape" at will."

1. I've been out of college for a while now: I tried the business world and hated it. I've returned to my hometown and now have my own little business (no, I'm not saying what it is).

2. I won't deny that Rand influenced my thinking, but Machiavelli, Nietzche and Derrida have had more influence on me than Rand.

3. I don't "rape" anyone - but I do see what we tend to call "law" as oppressive: it's really bad for my business and my clients.

And yes, I also see "morality" as a top-down structure: it's only real purpose is to keep people subservient to a core group of the social elite.

"Perhaps the stronger will reign supreme in that culture. But by what right? Where do the strong get the righteousness to impose their will and preferences upon the weak?"

What "right?" I support letting other cultures be run by whoever is stronger not because it's "right," but because we have no vested interests in controlling their social destiny: our nation's only real interest in this part of the world is oil, not promoting social change or "making lives 'better' for everyone else" - if that happens so be it, but that's not our driving goal.

Also He who...,

"Well, obviously, one of us is working towards more eventual happiness and less suffering, but what the heck, right? You're criticizing us for being culturally arrogant (or at least intervenient), but you're sparing the perpetrators the same criticism of unjustifiable oppression, even though it is of a much more heinous nature!"

1. I'm particularly peeved at Humanist thinking as it assumes that somehow humans are the center of our existence - that the individual is to ensure that everyone else around him is happy and trusts them to return the favor. I don't have that kind of faith in our species: we seem to be geared towards looking out for ourselves and our own first, not anyone else.

So I pursue the alternative path: seek happiness for myself and mine and not pay much mind to those that fall outside that catagory.

2. My problem isn't with the act being commited so much as it is with the arrogence of "moral" absolutists that assume that their condemnation of said acts ("heinous" ones - according to your standards of "morality") are indeed "righteous" in some way - as "right" and "wrong" are just ideas, not absolutes forever set in stone: I would have the same problem with the people condemned in the article if they sought to impose their own "morality" on our culture.

Also He who...,

"In fact, the whole idea of letting the strong take over the weak assumes that you are neither of the two, so that you may "let" it happen. Why not just be the stronger ones, and get involved?"

I don't get involved in this little tussle over tribal traditions because (a) I have no vested interest in its outcome and (b) to expend any energy on this would waste strenght I could otherwise expend on things that are more immediate concerns to me (like defense of my property, seeing my family's needs met and keeping the "law" away from my territory). My goals aren't global - they're local: global ambitions have a history of failing miserably when the strength of the party that founded them fails - just look at every empire (both plitical and economic) in the course of human history, they all eventually fall apart and leave nothing but choas in their wake!

Also He who...,

"Do you have any "end goals" as an individual that could include a better life for other people? Or are you as reprehensible as you make yourself out to be?"

I plan to improve the lives of myself and those close to me through any means in my power, everyone else will have to fend for themselves. It sounds cold, but ultimately that's how natural selection works: those who are strong enough to ensure the survival of themselves and family make it, the rest don't.

Not to mention horribly shortsighted. As a species, are survival strategy has always been a social order. If he does this "strong oppress the weak" psuedo-social darwinism, he's shooting himself in the foot.

I'm going to take a wild guess here, but the person who wrote this gem is a middle class male living at the higher socioeconomic end of a liberal market democracy.

Back on topic: education is the key to ending practices such as this. The problem is that such education can't be introduced from outside - it will take individuals like Arwa Abdu Muhammad Ali working inside their own social circles, and all we can do is support their attempts to spread that message.

Christopher:

Perhaps the stronger will reign supreme in that culture. But by what right? Where do the strong get the righteousness to impose their will and preferences upon the weak? How are those imposers any different from us imposers? Well, obviously, one of us is working towards more eventual happiness and less suffering, but what the heck, right? You're criticizing us for being culturally arrogant (or at least intervenient), but you're sparing the perpetrators the same criticism of unjustifiable oppression, even though it is of a much more heinous nature!

If you really held the apathetic position of letting the strong take over the weak, then we wouldn't be carrying out this conversation right now. If us modern nations are even stronger than these barbaric ones, economically, militarily, ideologically, or otherwise, then you should let enlightenment happen hunky-dory, correct? In fact, the whole idea of letting the strong take over the weak assumes that you are neither of the two, so that you may "let" it happen. Why not just be the stronger ones, and get involved? Do you have any "end goals" as an individual that could include a better life for other people? Or are you as reprehensible as you make yourself out to be?

Let me put this in terms you understand better.

A) It's your opinion that neither set of morals or culture are better
B) We have no reason to force our way of non-raping, non-child marrying, non-abusing morals onto other groups of people; fair enough.
C) As far as I see, from your view point, we also have no reason to NOT force our morality on other people; who are you to tell us we shouldn't be doing this if enough of us want to or feel that such things are inhuman and immoral and want to change them? Just because YOU don't like the way other people you're trying to make them think like you do? Who are you to say your way is better. You should just step aside and let the cultural outrage exist and be as it will.