Validity and soundness in argumentative reasoning

¶ … honor killings" has been the subject of outrage from a variety of associations and individuals promoting human rights. Honor killings occur mostly in Eastern and Islam communities, for the purpose of preserving family honor and unity. As the statement claims, its purpose is to "strengthen" families. Furthermore the defense of the phenomenon rests upon the view that it is simply a part of tradition and culture, and should therefore not be condemned as wrong. The promoters of honor killings in fact use the ideal of tolerance in order to further this oppressive practice. When the claim of culture and tradition are however more deeply investigated, it becomes clear that the idea of honor killings is not based on any ancient or religious ideal. Instead, the practice stems from the psychological paradigm of oppression, under which certain sectors of society suffer unfairly. I therefore believe that honor killings are in no way defensible.

In terms of culture, it is claimed that honor killings are a tradition with a long history. It rests upon the basis of cultural differences and the defense of this tradition lies in the fact that cultures should be tolerant of each other. One must however distinguish between culture and oppression. Honor killings occur in many cultures -- not just a single one. None of these "cultures" promote the ideal of tolerance within their own borders. Their oppression of especially women is notorious, as became clear with the widely published practices of the Taliban.

The practices upon which honor killings rest are also extreme and unfair. While rape is deemed a crime in these cultures, men who rape often receive a lenient sentence, while women are killed in order to preserve their family's honor. Further extreme cases include those where women are killed because their bridal dowry is not deemed sufficient, they flirt, or even do not serve a meal on time. This is not based upon culture, but upon a brutal practice using the weak and illiterate as scapegoats. In these societies women are considered the property of the males in their family, which justifies any sort of brutality against them. Women are therefore not allowed to make their own choices regarding entering or terminating a marriage, or anything else in their lives.

While it is therefore possible to consider the concept of family honor as extremely important based upon cultural values, honor killings cannot be viewed in this light. This can be substantiated by the scriptures and religion upon which the practice is claimed to be based. Islam and its holy scripture, the Koran, does not in any way condone either oppression of women or killing as punishment for sexual or other offenses. In fact, the Koran emphasizes that women and men are equal. As such, each person is responsible for his or her own sins.

On the other hand, the Koran also takes a very clear stance against sexual offenses. It condemns sexual indiscretions by both men and women very clearly. The scripture is also however very clear on how these indiscretions should be handled. Four eye witnesses are for example necessary before an accusation of indiscretion can be approved. The religion of Islam is therefore based upon love and equality, whereas the "culture" that is claimed as the basis for honor killings is instead based upon oppression and inequality. The leniency that men enjoy as opposed to women committing the same crimes is proof of this.

In terms of strengthening families, the argument is simply farcical. It is impossible to believe that a family whose members kill each other actually strengthens that family. Murder in fact does not either strengthen the family itself or preserve its honor. Indeed, not only does it proclaim widely that some indiscretion has been committed, but the murder itself also places a stain on the family. In this way the argument of strength and honor for the family in question is fallacious.

The final claim of the argument is that there is no right and wrong in this matter, and that the fact of differing opinions is proof of this. This difference of opinion is however based upon more than cultural paradigms. It is based upon the paradigm of willful oppression. Those in power in countries where honor killings occur seek to promote their power by a reign of terror, rather than the promotion of tolerance. Therefore tolerance cannot be used in an argument attempting to justify the killing. It is therefore not a matter merely of culture, but rather of basic human rights and equality.