If I quote an article in support of my argument, I will be happy to explain what you don't understand. If I can't, you are free to ignore the quote. I expect the same courtesy from you.
If you want an explanation, just tell me what you don't understand and I'll explain what it means.
Deal?
Given that evolution has our survival in mind, why would our moral intuition on the act of killing vary from place to place?
Whose survival?
Do you agree we are biased to preferring our survival and that of our family and friends and associates and group members over strangers or enemies?
We'd all save our loved ones over strangers given the chance.
What best ensures the survival of us and our group varies from place to place so our view on killing does.
The more likely explanation for honor cultures is very low self-esteem among the males. They over-react to insults, etc. It probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.
This seems to suggest you don't know what an honour culture is.
It's basically impossible that millions of males over millennia in certain regions overwhelmingly had "low self esteem" and so created a complex morality of honour and social obligation that proved successful and enduring that differed to their "high esteem" neighbours.
Here is an explanation of honour Culture, do you want me to explain it more?
The issues relates to how esteem is granted in
(2011) described honor culture and dignity culture. First, in honor cultures, honor is the value of a person in his or her own eyes, but also in the eyes of society. In honor cultures, people base their self-esteem in large part on their social reputation and on how well they live up to the culturally defined honor code (Peristiany, 1965; Stewart, 1994). The honor code involves a set of norms that are defined by values that are emphasized within a culture and can refer to different domains, such as family honor, masculine honor, feminine honor, or integrity (Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, & Fischer, 2002a). For example, it is important for males to have a reputation of toughness and to be able to protect their families and possessions. For females, modesty and the avoidance of shameful behaviors—especially sexual immodesty or adultery—is key (Vandello & Cohen, 2003
Isn't it likely that honor killings will be wiped out in time by the moral intuition we were all born with?
Humans evolved with this perfectly uniform and benevolent moral intuition, but from day one, instead of following these intuitions they decided to be violent and divisive instead. We evolved with moral intuition that guaranteed global harmony, but only after we had spent a hundred thousand years being increasingly violent and oppressive before returning back to what should have been our "true" state?
I can't imagine many things less likely than that
. That's why religions need to make up myths like the fall to explain human evil.
You are using the word "bias" in a way that I don't understand. When I write of a cultural moral bias, I'm referring to an attitude or opinion that would send an intuitive judgment of conscience off its true course.
I'll explain using a previous quote.
For example, Hauser:
I favor a pluralistic position, one that recognizes different moral systems, and sees adherence to a single system as oppressive. The notion of a universal moral grammar with parametric variation provides one way to think about pluralism. It requires us to understand how, in development, particular parameters are fixed by experience. It also requires us to appreciate that, once fixed, we may be as perplexed by another commu- nity’s moral system as we are by their language. Appreciating the fact that we share a universal moral grammar, and that at birth we could have acquired any of the world’s moral systems, should provide us with a sense of comfort, a sense that perhaps we can understand each other.
He is saying he accepts moral pluralism: the idea that more than one moral system can be "correct" and that is a good thing.
Our universal grammar is impacted by "parametric variation" (by which he means inputs such as culture and experience). Hauser: "
It requires us to understand how, in development, particular parameters are fixed by experience"
Once we are socialised into one system we can't escape it and other systems seem incompressible.
As such you can't see honour culture as anything other than an "error":
once fixed, we may be as perplexed by another community’s moral system as we are by their language.
Isn't he saying this is bad and we need to get back to our "pure" state? No, quite the opposite, knowing we are all a product of our culture and cannot escape this allows us to appreciate moral differences not as the result of cuktures being "good" or "bad", but instead they are just and accident of history: "
I favor a pluralistic position, one that recognizes different moral systems, and sees adherence to a single system as oppressive. Appreciating the fact that we share a universal moral grammar, and that at birth we could have acquired any of the world’s moral systems, should provide us with a sense of comfort, a sense that perhaps we can understand each other."