Moral Relativism

quote:

---

Would you accept the United States? We know that it, as a culture, practices genital mutilation, but I'm not sure if you would agree that it believes that moral standards are grounded only in social custom

---

You may be right.The genital mutilation is typically carried out under the guise of an absolute imperative from God, but is tolerated by US society on the basis of relativism?Strange then that those who oppose circumcision are accused of moral relativism by those who support it ... http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/features/AmEchad.cfmIt still seems that our friend has it totally the wrong way round: genital mutilation and slavery seem to thrive where society enforces a core set of values: moral relativism (thank God!) would appear to most conspicuous in its opposition to such practices.

Well if there is one thing that I have learned in the past few days is that people definatley have different ideas of what Relativism is or refers to, and I'm sure it doesn't stop with Relativism. Though cumbersome I guess we should take each idea or interpretation at a time. Well for discussions sake lets take each idea of relativism that we have separatley and discuss why or why not it works with consideration of opinion and experience. Lets start with the view that "There is no source for moral absolutes" Why do you believe that this is correct? The immediate problem with this I see is if we focus on the source we utlimatley lead this discussion to the question of "Is there a God or is there no God?" Which in case would tangent us somewhat but if it leads us there so be it. Most of the suggestions I have heard about how we get our morality are simple. A. There is a God who instilled in us certain "moral absolutes". or B. Our morality is a result of evolution or more accuratley natural selection. Certain morals were imperative in the survival of our species so we carried those benefical morals on with us. What do you think?

Because nobody can agree on what it is, and there appears to be no good way to determine who is right. So rather than just pick one group at random, let's abandon the idea altogether and start from scratch: "What morals does our society think are appropriate and preserve the dignity and quality of life for all persons to the greatest extent?"There's a testing procedure in there, too - if a society fails to preserve the quality of life for as many individuals as it could be, I have no problem stating "that society has failed to find suitable morals." Well, obviously I choose B. If A, why then can no one agree on what those moral absolutes are - even among people who believe in the same god?So, B looks more right to me. Societies evolve in the same way species do - they change over time, and they either adapt or die out.

quote:

---

Why do you believe that this is correct? The immediate problem with this I see is if we focus on the source we utlimatley lead this discussion to the question of "Is there a God or is there no God?"

---

I agree with crash on the first question. There is no way to sort out absolute from relative morality. In essense, it is all relative-- relative to an individual or group's concept of the world.For the second, I don't think the discussion needs to go there. For the purpose at hand, we could simply assume that a God exists and ask "which one?" We end up in the same position as before.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would you accept the United States? We know that it, as a culture, practices genital mutilation, but I'm not sure if you would agree that it believes that moral standards are grounded only in social custom

---

​

The genital mutilation is typically carried out under the guise of an absolute imperative from God, but is tolerated by US society on the basis of relativism?

---

Well, the vast majority of people who were the victims of infant genital mutilation weren't put under the knife without anesthesia at the behest of a religious commandment.It was done "to make him look like Daddy.""Because it's cleaner."And worst of all:"Because I don't like the way it looks."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Personally I find it highly disingenous to compare male circumcision in any way to the awful, barbaric, and permanently damaging atrocity that is female genital mutilation.Anyway, the studies indicate that circumcised men experience a smaller chance of sexual dysfunction at any point in life and, in general, lead more interesting and varied sexual lives.I have no memory older than about 2 or 3. I certainly don't remember being circumcised. (FGM is usually done to pubescent girls.) If nobody remembers the pain, why bother with dangerous anesthesia?

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Personally I find it highly disingenous to compare male circumcision in any way to the awful, barbaric, and permanently damaging atrocity that is female genital mutilation.

---

Personally, I find it highly disingenuous to think that there is some sort of moral benifecence to strapping down an infant, literally rending his flesh, and doing it all without anesthesia or his consent, simply because they don't tend to remember it and can manage to retain some sexual function afterward.Approximately 20% of the entire male population of the world is circumcised. How many women in the world have had any circumcision of any kind?Major complications from male circumcision run about 1 in 500. Again, how many women in the world have had any circumcision of any kind?Does this mean female genital mutilation is somehow ok? Of course not. But to treat male genital mutilation as somehow a minor problem only goes to show just how ingrained the sexism is. A man is not allowed control over his own body...and if he complains, he's whining.Let's not forget that we're talking about the US. When was the last time you heard of a girl in the US having anybody go near her genitals with a knife without somebody threatening to kill the maniac?

quote:

---

Anyway, the studies indicate that circumcised men experience a smaller chance of sexual dysfunction at any point in life and, in general, lead more interesting and varied sexual lives.

---

You're only talking about the men who don't have complications.Again, serious complications run about 1 in 500. With 20% of the world's male population circumcised, how many do you think that is?When was the last time a girl was killed from circumcision in the United States?

quote:

---

I have no memory older than about 2 or 3. I certainly don't remember being circumcised.

---

Oh, that makes it all better, then, doesn't it? Let's smack the baby around while we're at it...he won't remember. Never mind that the foreskin hasn't separated from the glans at that point and needs to literally be torn away before it gets sliced off without anesthesia."He won't remember." That makes it ok.

quote:

---

(FGM is usually done to pubescent girls.)

---

MGM is usually done to pubescent boys, too. The US isn't the only place that engages in circumcision.

quote:

---

If nobody remembers the pain, why bother with dangerous anesthesia?

---

Because it's cruel. Is it alright if I were to break your arm as an infant so long as you don't remember?And studies show that the effects of having your flesh torn from your body has lasting effects, even though you don't remember the actual trauma.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Didn't Jesus re-phrase the ten commandments because
he said that they needed updating to contemporary society?What would be an 'absolute moral' anyway?Surely 'absolute morality' would imply that all individuals
would view certain acts as 'right' or 'wrong' in the same
way. This is not the case.

Yeah, you are whining. By this logic we shouldn't bother tying off the umbilical cord. No surgery should ever be performed on infants, right? Not even beneficial ones? Doctors continue to perform the practice on young girls in the US, as a matter of fact. Obviously, it's only in those communities that are originally from cultures that practice FGM but it does happen here. Complications of what kind? It doesn't matter if they die. What matters is that FGM renders a female incapable of sexual enjoyment. Not to mention it greatly complicates childbirth and urination, even to the point of serious health risk.These are two clearly different topics. Circumcision isn't even in the same ballpark as FGM and it's disingenuous to compare them. I can imagine any purpose to such a comparison except for people to hijack the reasonable outrage people feel when faced with FGM and apply it to circumsision as well, where it's simply not appropriate. You're just riding on the coattails of people doing real work to stop FGM.

Circumcision irritates me too, crash.

quote:

---

Yeah, you are whining. By this logic we shouldn't bother tying off the umbilical cord. No surgery should ever be performed on infants, right? Not even beneficial ones?

---

Necessary surgery is in a different class than cosmetic surgery, yes? Then your conclusions just don't follow. If the kid is going to die, do something. But unnecessary surgery?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Look, I'm not trying to defend circimcision (although I just don't think it's that bad, and will probably have it done to any sons of mine). I'm just saying it's nowhere near as bad as the practice of FGM, which renders women incapable of sexual function in the vast majority of cases. It's outrageous to even compare them. I think it's up to the parents and their doctor to decide what is necessary and what is not. For many people, circumcision counts as necessary. Since it's basically a harmless, cosmetic procedure, I don't have a problem with that justification.I don't have a foreskin; I've never missed it. None of my partners have ever said "I wish you had a foreskin." In fact they've expressed the opposite sentiment. A young guy I know went in for the procedure at age 14 because he didn't want to have a foreskin. The healing was a little painful but no adverse effects, so far. As far as I know it's as useless as tonsils or the appendix. (Which is to say, not entirely useless, but not missed either.) That's just my personal experience, but that experience has led me to believe that it's just not that bad, and preferable in the culture in which I live as an American.Honestly, though, if the culture changes, and foreskins become preferred, well, that's what my son will have. My opinion on this is insufficiently strong to force me to swim against the tide. But so far, circumcision is the norm in America.Now, what were we talking about before? Moral relativism or something? And why FGM is supported - in every incidence - by cultures that hold to strict traditions of moral absolutes? So far none of the anti-relativist folks have addressed why this would be true.

Crashfrog,

quote:

---

I think it's up to the parents and their doctor to decide what is necessary and what is not. For many people, circumcision counts as necessary. Since it's basically a harmless, cosmetic procedure, I don't have a problem with that justification.

---

So ear piercing is necessary? Hair perming is necessary?I have nothing against male circumcision, & everything against the barbaric female-mutilation-that-passes-for-circumcision, but this seems a very strange rationale to me indeed, especially as your friend thought the recovery period as being painful, why not just keep the little bugger & not have the pain of it?. Having pain is not "harmless", IMHO.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Honestly I think we're getting off-topic with this, but... For some people, in order to identify with a culture or group they identify as theirs, sure.I'm not saying that rationale is enough for everyone to circumcise their sons, but to me it's certainly sufficient rationale to allow those parents that choose to have that procedure done to allow them to do so.Still, the question at hand is: Why do absolutist cultures tend to have more barbaric practices than those that aren't?

Are you actually saying that it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina?I've got no foreskin; I can still readily enjoy sex.There's a huge difference between the two. You might say it's one of degree only (I personally don't agree,) but the difference is still there.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

quote:

---

Still, the question at hand is: Why do absolutist cultures tend to have more barbaric practices than those that aren't?

---

I don't believe this to be true. All cultures are absolutist if you think about it. They base their constitutions and governments on absolutes such as our Bill of Rights. Just take the 1st amendment for example. Our biggest absolute is Freedom and our constitution is prepared in such a way that our freedom is to be protected. The value placed on freedom and equality in this country seems to qualify as an absolute that our constitution is based on. You can't have a constitution without absolutes to base it on. Therefore I wouldn't say that any culture is more absolutist then another.