
The controversy over child killing among Amazon tribes in Brazil - rbanffy
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/09/the-right-to-kill-brazil-infanticide/
======
zbentley
There are important questions about the nature of social progress here.

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.

~~~
sjg007
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.

------
chroma
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier)

~~~
pmoriarty
_" we must use something other than relativism to base our morals on"_

So what is that exactly?

~~~
chroma
I'm not sure. My bet is that it involves minimizing suffering and satisfying
preferences.

------
hrktb
> 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 ?

~~~
wodenokoto
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.

~~~
hrktb
> 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".

------
gkya
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.

~~~
downer68
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?

~~~
downer68
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.

~~~
gkya
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.

------
imbokodo
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.

~~~
froboz
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?

------
sitkack
[https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/24/world/gunmen-said-to-
be-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/24/world/gunmen-said-to-be-police-
kill-7-street-children-in-rio.html)

------
pmoriarty
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.

------
emiliobumachar
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.

~~~
gremlinsinc
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.

------
major505
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.

------
anonymfus
> 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."

------
dade_
Nevermind.

~~~
ajeet_dhaliwal
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.

~~~
Someone
_”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.

------
mozumder
Arguments here have to also reconcile with arguments used in the discussion on
Belgium's child euthanasia rights.

~~~
hrktb
are you refering to this ? [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
europe-26181615](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.

------
cdoxsey
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-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-wouldve-aborted-a-
fetus-with-down-syndrome-women-need-that-
right/2018/03/09/3aaac364-23d6-11e8-94da-ebf9d112159c_story.html) for example)

~~~
AlexAltea
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_ ".

~~~
jeffdavis
At what point is a child imbued with consciousness and a will to live? Who
should be responsible for that determination?

~~~
arkades
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.”

~~~
jeffdavis
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...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_brain)

------
whatcanthisbee
"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"?

~~~
azag0
I guess it only applies to traditional cultures, which the Nazis weren’t.

~~~
ItsMe000001
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.

