"Mingi"

[keithprosser3]

I guess most of us are familiar with the Spartan practice of abandoning weak and sickly children to die. It seems the practice still continues in certain tribes in Ethiopia (and possibly elsewhere).

Here is the wikipedia article on "Mingi" and
here is CNN's take.

We have to remember that these tribes have lived in extremely difficult circumstances for hundreds if not thousands of years. They have almost no spare resources available to care for 'passengers'. Mingi would seem to be based on an extreme version of rational utilitarianism.

However, it is also clear that over time the rational grounds for mingi have been overtaken by superstition. Often a child is 'mingi' (and hence murdered) not because they are - or would be - a burden on their society but because they show some harmless sign such as growing upper teeth before lower teeth.

I think this is a general principle. When a rational principle gets turned into a 'rule' people forget its purpose and start to think the rule exists for its own sake. I think this must underlie the apparent arbitrary and illogical nature of many religious laws and the concept of 'sin'.

For example, promiscuity may be objectively bad because it leads to unstable families that are not as good as raising healthy children, or because it allows certain diseases to spread more damagingly. But that becomes a religious rule that is applied whether it is relevant to the case or not. Resting is probably a good thing, so a day of rest is recommended. But that gets turned into a law that punishes working on the Sabbath with death. The letter of the rule obliterates the logic for the rule's existence.

So given the Hamar tribe have a genuine, rational and utilitarian reason to practice infanticide (because otherwise their society would suffer and perhaps end) but they now apply the rules superstitiously rather than rationally, what is the morality of mingi?

[Darias]

1)

I guess most of us are familiar with the Spartan practice of abandoning weak and sickly children to die.

Anyone who's seen the movie 300 is familiar with the deformed character, Ephialtes, who eventually betrays Sparta because he was not permitted to fight. The character was based on Ephialtes of Trachis. Ultimately, the moral implies the need or justification for "defected" child abandonment.

The Spartans however also had the practice of agoge, which trained up otherwise normal children for war. The intro of 300 had quite a gritty depiction of it, which is of course nothing but a romanticization of child abuse, child indoctrination, and state worship for the purposes of entertainment. Take this clip for example (Warning: the following contains violence that some may find disturbing; the film was rated R for a reason):

[center][yt]hpAMR3ZlTD8[/yt][/center]


2)

It seems the practice still continues in certain tribes in Ethiopia (and possibly elsewhere).

Here is the wikipedia article on "Mingi" and
here is CNN's take.

Your url to the CNN article was an accidental copypasta of the wikipedia entry. Was this the source you had in mind?

"Is the tide turning against the killing of 'cursed' infants in Ethiopia?," Matthew D. LaPlante, Special to CNN



3)

We have to remember that these tribes have lived in extremely difficult circumstances for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Well... this preface is rarely offered before discussing the mores of the Old Testament. Assuming the worst possible environment for any tribe -- be they Hamar, Israelite, or Karo -- all your statement can do is offer an explanation for their behavior. Explanation is never to be confused with justification; the two are completely different, despite the invalid, but common, association.



4)

They have almost no spare resources available to care for 'passengers'.

Do they currently have no spare resources or was that just the state of nature in ancient times? I find it hard to believe that farmers of crops and cattle could not produce any excess. If that was indeed the case, long ago, it sounds like a lifeboat scenario. A world without resources is bound to be a less charitable, less peaceful one, no matter what culture. It would be like a pre-industrial world or a post apocalyptic zombie world, where everyone would have to work, even the children, in order to produce enough to live.

A world which forcibly distributes resources until there is no more is also one which produces the same effect. Many of the early Pilgrim settlers were a bunch of elite, but unskilled people, and they had a communal system where all would take a share. The problem was that they nearly starved to death because most refused to work. That tends to be the natural incentive; if there is a free lunch, there will be more free riders. This is just the reality.

Obviously this was a time before Marx, but communal economies are nothing new. This one was imposed by a state approved corporation, but in any case, such living standards are not a product of free markets.

[quote="Rothbard, "What Really Happened at Plymouth," mises.org "]The Pilgrims formed a partnership in a joint-stock company with a group of London merchants, including Thomas Weston, an ironmonger, and John Peirce, a clothmaker. . . . Until that division, as in the original Virginia settlement, the company decreed a communistic system of production, with each settler contributing his all to the common store and each drawing his needs from it — again, a system of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.' . . . A major reason for the persistent hardships, for the 'starving time,' in Plymouth as before in Jamestown, was the communism imposed by the company. Finally, in order to survive, the colony in 1623 permitted each family to cultivate a small private plot of land for their individual use.[/quote]



5)

Mingi would seem to be based on an extreme version of rational utilitarianism.

That which is rational is neither extreme, nor utilitarian. To describe the obviously superstitious, collective mindset of these tribes as "rational," or born out of some philosophical deliberation is patently absurd. Any extreme act of necessity due to the scarcity of resources or poor planning or a failed hunt is not a rational, ethically justified choice, it is just survival at the expense of the weak. One could possibly understand how this extreme environment might encourage such behavior, but no such environment exists now (because these tribes have existed for so long and probably know how to prepare for the young and old alike); and so there can be no excuse.



6)

However, it is also clear that over time the rational grounds for mingi have been overtaken by superstition. Often a child is 'mingi' (and hence murdered) not because they are - or would be - a burden on their society but because they show some harmless sign such as growing upper teeth before lower teeth.

But did you notice what they actually believe?

If they have the mingi, there will be no water, no food, no cattle. But when they throw the baby away, everything is good again. . . .

[Y]es, it is sad, but we are thinking about the village, the family, all the people. . . .
We tell the parents, 'don't cry for your baby, because you will save everyone. You can always make another baby.'

As you can see here, they are using ex post facto excuses to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the community or nation, if you will.

Of course, in actuality, they probably wouldn't be a burden on the tribe even if they were deformed, assuming the tribe has some notion of property rights (ownership of food or resources). In any case most would be contributing to the gathering of food for communal huts thanks to collectivist indoctrination, like patriotism.

These may be tribal people, but they are adults and they know where babies come from. Most adults voluntarily decide to have a child, and therefore the child, no matter how deformed, is a product of their premeditation. If they did not have the resources to provide for the child, they should have refrained from vaginal sex. If they were able to own property and store up more than enough for themselves and any truly handicapped children, then it wouldn't be the community's problem. It may be that they cannot choose to give up their children for adoption by another willing family within the tribe who may be richer -- most likely because they have some communist conception of ownership, a primitive theory of economics to go hand in hand with their barbaric practices of infanticide.



7)

I think this is a general principle. When a rational principle gets turned into a 'rule' people forget its purpose and start to think the rule exists for its own sake. I think this must underlie the apparent arbitrary and illogical nature of many religious laws and the concept of 'sin'.

For example, promiscuity may be objectively bad because it leads to unstable families that are not as good as raising healthy children, or because it allows certain diseases to spread more damagingly. But that becomes a religious rule that is applied whether it is relevant to the case or not. Resting is probably a good thing, so a day of rest is recommended. But that gets turned into a law that punishes working on the Sabbath with death. The letter of the rule obliterates the logic for the rule's existence.

1. Utilitarians do not adhere to the idea of objective practices. Whatever is good is whatever benefits most in the end, it doesn't matter what it is, what it entails, or who it devours in the process. It is not unlike divine command theory, which suggests that the dictates of the divine are always good no matter what they are or how contradictory they may be throughout the eons -- and no matter who suffers as a result.

2. I know this is an example, but it isn't very good. There is nothing about promiscuity that can be objectively condemned unless it were to involve rape. Promiscuity is not an issue in light of technology. Promiscuity does not mean familial bonds will suffer, even in the absence of condoms, etc. It can mean for diseases, but only among the willing partners who choose to participate.

3. But you have a point whenever superstitions like religion, collectivism or statism are thrown into the mix, bad things will happen.



8)

So given the Hamar tribe have a genuine, rational and utilitarian reason to practice infanticide (because otherwise their society would suffer and perhaps end) but they now apply the rules superstitiously rather than rationally, what is the morality of mingi?

I don't accept your assumption that infanticide was ever a product of rational reasoning to begin with, and I certainly don't buy the idea that it is now -- how mad! Superstition, tribal-minded collectivism, and inefficient resource management all encourage this most unnecessary infanticide. You don't have to be deontological like me to see this; even a consequentialist can recognize that violence and the failure to respect individual freedoms (property, life, etc.) will fail to produce the best results for everyone in the end. These tribes would be far more prosperous and happy than they are now if they didn't abandon and kill their young for the sake of tradition.

What these tribesmen and women need is a healthy dose of individualism. Society is but a collection of individuals; it is not this thing that has a will or that can be hurt by others. They need respect for property rights (which ultimately includes respect for life). They need technology (like condoms). And they need just about anything but superstitious instruction from their elders. When it comes to the importance of children versus the will of the herd, sod the tribe... and Spok too for making people living in the West think appealing to the majority is logical.

[center][/center]

• No they don't Spok. If you want to sacrifice yourself to save others, be my guest, but it doesn't follow that others should make that choice on behalf of the weak and innocent.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by keithprosser3]

So given the Hamar tribe have a genuine, rational and utilitarian reason to practice infanticide (because otherwise their society would suffer and perhaps end) but they now apply the rules superstitiously rather than rationally, what is the morality of mingi?

I would question the practice of poppin' out kids in their current situation before anything else.
I would also challenge the genuine, rational and utilitarian reason you describe for the practice of infanticide: wouldn't it be more prodent that limiting reproduction and putting more effort into what you have now than betting on numbers? It's not like they are fish or insects and can only survive based on numbers - they have thinking minds and can alter their environment to help support their own needs, yes?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 3 by connermt]

I think your questions are justified. As we become capable of exercising control, a lack of exercised control does not justify acts of wholesale slaughter when alternatives can be sought out.