Circumcision???

Chuck Stone

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the law should be a place for people to compel other people to subscribe to their ideologies.

What the hell has that got to do with assaulting* a child with a sharp blade?

*let's call it what it is - if you held down an adult and cut off his foreskin you would be imprisoned for GBH and rightly so.

Piste

philologos wrote: »

So let's say if the law suggested that everyone had to follow Hasidic Jewish practices to a tee, you should be fine on that considering that you are OK with people putting their ideologies into law?

I said I'm comfortable with the fundamental principle of ideologies being enacted into law, not that every ideology deserves a place in law, so no I don't believe we should accept a law mandating people to follow Hasidic Jewish practices to a tee.

philologos wrote: »

If you do even the most rudimentary research into FGM you will see that there are clear differences between it and circumcision in terms of its effects.

I'm actually writing a paper on FGM at the moment. I wasn't attempting to say that male and female circumcision are the same (although Type 1 FGM and male circumcision are certainly analogous), I was saying that the law also acts to protect us from others forcing their ideologies upon us, and used foot binding and FGM as an example of this.

philologos wrote: »

Yes, pretty much that is the debate we're getting into. My point is, that unless you can show that circumcision has clear disadvantages over being uncircumcised, I don't see any good or sound reason as to why it should be criminalised, and I don't think that your ideology has any place in law on this issue.

My main argument for why circumcision of children should be criminalised rests heavily on the fact that it's non-consensual and violates their bodily autonomy. A parent has no right to dramatically and permanently alter their child's body without their consent, be it head to toe tattooing, circumcision or chopping off their earlobes. I don't think the right of the parent to exert their religious belief on the child trumps the child's right to autonomy. The child of Muslim or Jewish parents may grow to be an atheist adult, or a Christian adult, or a Jewish or Muslim adult, in which case they can become circumcised when it is their own choice to do so.

If the onus is on those of us opposed to forcibly circumcising young boys to illustrate the inherent harms of non-consensual circumcision, there is surely an onus on those of you who believe that parents have a right to circumcise their babies to illustrate the benefits of circumcision, but more improtanty why the parents right to express their religion trumps a baby's right to bodily autonomy.

EDIT: To answer your question in a later post, I believe in subjective morality.

philologos

Piste wrote: »

I said I'm comfortable with the fundamental principle of ideologies being enacted into law, not that every ideology deserves a place in law, so no I don't believe we should accept a law mandating people to follow Hasidic Jewish practices to a tee.

This comes back to my question. Do you believe that morality is objective or subjective? - I'm curious to see what your answer is.

Piste wrote: »

I'm actually writing a paper on FGM at the moment. I wasn't attempting to say that male and female circumcision are the same (although Type 1 FGM and male circumcision are certainly analogous), I was saying that the law also acts to protect us from others forcing their ideologies upon us, and used foot binding and FGM as an example of this.

You're suggesting that the law protects us from others forcing their ideologies on us, yet you're happy to force your ideology on Jewish and Islamic communities? - Isn't there something ironic about that.

By the by, I'm saying this as a Christian, and as someone who doesn't advocate circumcision.

Piste wrote: »

My main argument for why circumcision of children should be criminalised rests heavily on the fact that it's non-consensual and violates their bodily autonomy. A parent has no right to dramatically and permanently alter their child's body without their consent, be it head to toe tattooing, circumcision or chopping off their earlobes. I don't think the right of the parent to exert their religious belief on the child trumps the child's right to autonomy. The child of Muslim or Jewish parents may grow to be an atheist adult, or a Christian adult, or a Jewish or Muslim adult, in which case they can become circumcised when it is their own choice to do so.

I fail to see how being circumcised is a violation of bodily autonomy. It doesn't remove or hinder any of the normal functioning of a male penis.

Piste wrote: »

If the onus is on those of us opposed to forcibly circumcising young boys to illustrate the inherent harms of non-consensual circumcision, there is surely an onus on those of you who believe that parents have a right to circumcise their babies to illustrate the benefits of circumcision, but more improtanty why the parents right to express their religion trumps a baby's right to bodily autonomy.

I don't advocate circumcision. Actually, I'd say it's a mixed bag. There are clear pros to circumcision that can be read on the wikipedia entry and there are cons. There are also pros to being uncircumcised, and cons.

I don't think there is good enough reasoning behind your position, and as a result I think that there is no reason to restrict circumcision in so far as it is done in a safe manner.

philologos

Piste wrote: »

EDIT: To answer your question in a later post, I believe in subjective morality.

If you're basing this on a subjective morality position (AKA what is good, is what I decide good to be, and what is evil, is what I decide evil to be), how on earth can you reasonably claim that your position should be binding on all others in a nation or indeed in the world?

Unless you are claiming that your statement is universally right, and universally true, there would be no good reason for you to do this.

It seems like your position is inconsistent.

Sierra 117

If there are pros and cons to both circumcision and non-circumcision, then shouldn't the child be deciding which pros and cons he wants to go with and not the parents? He's the one who will have to live with it, after all.

philologos

Sierra 117 wrote: »

If there are pros and cons to both circumcision and non-circumcision, then shouldn't the child be deciding which pros and cons he wants to go with and not the parents? He's the one who will have to live with it, after all.

Many people have been using the word 'abuse'.

The reality is that the word abuse actually means - Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse

Therefore it is up to those who are claiming it is abusive to show that there is any reasonable detriment to the individual as a result of circumcision.

Sierra 117

Nice way of skirting around the question.

Piste

philologos wrote: »

3) Causing bodily harm is a violation of anothers rights.

philologos wrote: »

I fail to see how being circumcised is a violation of bodily autonomy. It doesn't remove or hinder any of the normal functioning of a male penis.

Circumcision is a bodily harm- you're altering and removing part of somebody's body with a knife without their consent! Just because it doesn't cause lasting functional damage (although this has been debated earlier in the thread that it decreases sensitivity- I'm not a man so I couldn't say firsthand) , neither does chopping off somebody's earlobes, or slashing their skin with a knife in a place nobody would see (so it doesn't cause cosmetic harms), we still view these as unacceptable. I really don't buy the argument that it doesn't cause functional damage as being a strong enough argument to retain circumcision.

philologos wrote: »

This comes back to my question. Do you believe that morality is objective or subjective? - I'm curious to see what your answer is.

Subjective.

philologos wrote: »

You're suggesting that the law protects us from others forcing their ideologies on us, yet you're happy to force your ideology on Jewish and Islamic communities? - Isn't there something ironic about that.

I said I'm comfortable with the law forcing certain ideologies on people as well as protecting them from other ideologies, what's the problem with this? This is something society has already accepted in that we allow certain things and disallow others.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think there is good enough reasoning behind your position, and as a result I think that there is no reason to restrict circumcision in so far as it is done in a safe manner.

The only reasoning behind your position has been attempting to refute my position, you haven't given any argument as to why forced circumcision should be allowed. I really don't think "it doesn't alter function" is a good enough reason to retain circumcision.

Piste

philologos wrote: »

If you're basing this on a subjective morality position (AKA what is good, is what I decide good to be, and what is evil, is what I decide evil to be), how on earth can you reasonably claim that your position should be binding on all others in a nation or indeed in the world? Unless you are claiming that your statement is universally right, and universally true, there would be no good reason for you to do this.

It seems like your position is inconsistent.

What I am saying is that my position is that forced circumcision of babies is a morally wrong thing to do, and I have given my arguments as to why this is. My belief is that others should share this line of reasoning and that we as a society should decide that we believe this is the right way to treat children. I don't see any inconsistency here.

jurahnimoh

With Ireland having the second smallest flutes in Europe every millimeter is goin ta be needed to keep us from bottom spot!!

philologos

Piste wrote: »

Circumcision is a bodily harm- you're altering and removing part of somebody's body with a knife without their consent! Just because it doesn't cause lasting functional damage (although this has been debated earlier in the thread that it decreases sensitivity- I'm not a man so I couldn't say firsthand) , neither does chopping off somebody's earlobes, or slashing their skin with a knife in a place nobody would see (so it doesn't cause cosmetic harms), we still view these as unacceptable. I really don't buy the argument that it doesn't cause functional damage as being a strong enough argument to retain circumcision.

Harm suggests that there is physical damage done to the individual. Yet, there is very little to show that circumcision actually does physically harm anyone. I.E - That it is any more detrimental to be circumcised than uncircumcised.

Piste wrote: »

I said I'm comfortable with the law forcing certain ideologies on people as well as protecting them from other ideologies, what's the problem with this? This is something society has already accepted in that we allow certain things and disallow others.

Which is inconsistent with holding to moral subjectivism? - The question holds how do you know that what you hold to be moral is right? Or indeed, how do you know that what you hold to be immoral is wrong? That is if you have no objective standard and no objective standard by which to determine what is right, and what is wrong for all men.

In a sense, on what basis can you say that your ideology is superior to the ideology of Muslims and Jews in the absence of an objective authority that is binding over all men.

You do know that society can be an ass. Societies can advocate things which are clearly morally wrong, and have done so in the past.

EDIT: If you're curious, I actually hold to objective morality, and an objective moral standard.

Piste wrote: »

The only reasoning behind your position has been attempting to refute my position, you haven't given any argument as to why forced circumcision should be allowed. I really don't think "it doesn't alter function" is a good enough reason to retain circumcision.

I'm advocating that the status quo remain. You are the one suggesting that circumcision should be illegal. Since you're the one advocating such a radical change, I think the onus is on you and others to demonstrate how circumcision is actually harmful or detrimental to the individual.

If you can't do that, then there's no good reason for making it illegal as far as I can see anyway.

Piste wrote: »

What I am saying is that my position is that forced circumcision of babies is a morally wrong thing to do, and I have given my arguments as to why this is. My belief is that others should share this line of reasoning and that we as a society should decide that we believe this is the right way to treat children. I don't see any inconsistency here.

Is it objectively wrong? - Is it wrong irrespective of what you think or what others think?

If it is objectively wrong, there is an objective standard which should be binding on all men that you are appealing to. And if there is an objective standard, there is a reason why that standard exists.

Otherwise, it is inconsistent.

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Piste wrote: »

Circumcision is a bodily harm- you're altering and removing part of somebody's body with a knife without their consent! Just because it doesn't cause lasting functional damage (although this has been debated earlier in the thread that it decreases sensitivity- I'm not a man so I couldn't say firsthand) , neither does chopping off somebody's earlobes, or slashing their skin with a knife in a place nobody would see (so it doesn't cause cosmetic harms), we still view these as unacceptable. I really don't buy the argument that it doesn't cause functional damage as being a strong enough argument to retain circumcision.

Harm suggests that there is physical damage done to the individual. Yet, there is very little to show that circumcision actually does physically harm anyone. I.E - That it is any more detrimental to be circumcised than uncircumcised.

Piste wrote: »

I said I'm comfortable with the law forcing certain ideologies on people as well as protecting them from other ideologies, what's the problem with this? This is something society has already accepted in that we allow certain things and disallow others.

Which is inconsistent with holding to moral subjectivism? - The question holds how do you know that what you hold to be moral is right? Or indeed, how do you know that what you hold to be immoral is wrong? That is if you have no objective standard and no objective standard by which to determine what is right, and what is wrong for all men.

In a sense, on what basis can you say that your ideology is superior to the ideology of Muslims and Jews in the absence of an objective authority that is binding over all men.

You do know that society can be an ass. Societies can advocate things which are clearly morally wrong, and have done so in the past.

EDIT: If you're curious, I actually hold to objective morality, and an objective moral standard.

Piste wrote: »

The only reasoning behind your position has been attempting to refute my position, you haven't given any argument as to why forced circumcision should be allowed. I really don't think "it doesn't alter function" is a good enough reason to retain circumcision.

I'm advocating that the status quo remain. You are the one suggesting that circumcision should be illegal. Since you're the one advocating such a radical change, I think the onus is on you and others to demonstrate how circumcision is actually harmful or detrimental to the individual.

If you can't do that, then there's no good reason for making it illegal as far as I can see anyway.

Piste wrote: »

What I am saying is that my position is that forced circumcision of babies is a morally wrong thing to do, and I have given my arguments as to why this is. My belief is that others should share this line of reasoning and that we as a society should decide that we believe this is the right way to treat children. I don't see any inconsistency here.

Is it objectively wrong? - Is it wrong irrespective of what you think or what others think?

If it is objectively wrong, there is an objective standard which should be binding on all men that you are appealing to. And if there is an objective standard, there is a reason why that standard exists.

Otherwise, it is inconsistent.

Jesus that's some twisted logic to slice off a baby's foreskin.

It is extremely painful to a baby to have their foreskin cut off, also your baby is not your property, a parent is responsible for their well being, they can't do anything they want to the baby.. That's good reasoning right there to not to circumcise a baby.

What if my religion says its ok to get a knife and scar you chest, do I have the right to do that?

Sierra 117

There are men who regret being circumcised as children and wished they weren't. Is that not enough reason to stop it being imposed on children?

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has the right to mutilate a baby. If someone's faith implores them to cause harm to a baby then you don't have a right to adhere to that faith. Simple as.

The problem is nobody has presented any good reason to believe why circumcision is harmful, or detrimental over uncircumcision.

Another question to ask Piste and yourself would be, do you believe in objective or subjective morality?

Morals are to a large extent subjective, however, minimising suffering is something we need to do as a society for everyone's benefit. Causing such pain to a defenceless baby needlessly causes suffering, that's why it's wrong.

BQQ

If it's done in utero, does the mother have the right to choose

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Jesus that's some twisted logic to slice off a baby's foreskin.

It is extremely painful to a baby to have their foreskin cut off, also your baby is not your property, a parent is responsible for their well being, they can't do anything they want to the baby.. That's good reasoning right there to not to circumcise a baby.

What if my religion says its ok to get a knife and scar you chest, do I have the right to do that?

I'm not advocating circumcision. I'm saying that there is no destructive consequences of it.

Not promoting criminalising circumcision != promoting circumcision.

If I was promoting circumcision, I'd have been long circumcised by now

Indeed, the parent is responsible for their wellbeing. There isn't any good evidence to suggest that circumcision is detrimental to anyone's wellbeing.

opinion guy

philologos wrote: »

I'm not advocating circumcision. I'm saying that there is no destructive consequences of it.

Jesus Christ.

Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=botched+circumcision

philologos

opinion guy wrote: »

Jesus Christ.

Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=botched+circumcision

Any procedure can be botched by the by. Generally, that's a reason for people to object to careless procedures rather than to circumcision itself. I suggest that you be consistent and apply that logic to all procedures.

For the record I think any Jewish and Islamic authorities performing circumcisions should be qualified to do so in the eyes of the State.

Neeson

Sierra 117 wrote: »

There are men who regret being circumcised as children and wished they weren't. Is that not enough reason to stop it being imposed on children?

How can they regret when they have never known what it's like?

bgrizzley

Neeson wrote: »

How can they regret when they have never known what it's like?

so if someone cut off your hand when you were a baby you cant regret its loss?

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Morals are to a large extent subjective, however, minimising suffering is something we need to do as a society for everyone's benefit. Causing such pain to a defenceless baby needlessly causes suffering, that's why it's wrong.

The problem is - if morality is subjective, how do you know what is best for society? How do you know what is beneficial for society? If there's no objective standard, there's also no way to demonstrate explicitly that your way is best.

Unless, there is an objective standard of right and wrong between us all, then moral speculation is like chasing the wind. It is pointless.

As I've mentioned to Piste, society can be an ass. Society can at times promote things which are wholly immoral, even when they are clearly wrong. For example, eugenics. Subjective morality actually doesn't work in real life, that's why I don't believe in it.

Edit: I find it even more bizarre that some people will claim that a harmless procedure is abuse, while on the other hand claiming that the death of 50 million children each year globally via abortion-by-choice is OK.

Gbear

philologos wrote: »

Edit: I find it even more bizarre that some people will claim that a harmless procedure is abuse, while on the other hand claiming that the death of 50 million children each year globally via abortion-by-choice is OK.

There's your problem.

They're not children.

Neeson

bgrizzley wrote: »

Neeson wrote: »

How can they regret when they have never known what it's like?

so if someone cut off your hand when you were a baby you cant regret its loss?

The hand is out there. The willy is under the clothes do jimmy wont feel as bad that he has less skin than his best friend.

Cutting off the hand is a bit extreme. They don't cut off a full willy so why do a full hand? Let's keep it even and compare it to the removal of a finger nail.

Neeson

Gbear wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Edit: I find it even more bizarre that some people will claim that a harmless procedure is abuse, while on the other hand claiming that the death of 50 million children each year globally via abortion-by-choice is OK.

There's your problem.

They're not children.

It's still murder. And it could be a bit hurtful for the body.

Piste

philologos wrote: »

Harm suggests that there is physical damage done to the individual. Yet, there is very little to show that circumcision actually does physically harm anyone. I.E - That it is any more detrimental to be circumcised than uncircumcised.

It seems like we have different interpretations of the word harm, I don't believe a mutilating act has to lead to loss of function of that body part to still be harmful. Would you condone removing the clitoral hood of a baby girl? Slicing off the earlobes of a baby? Tatooing a baby from head to toe? None of these acts result in loss of function for the baby, but permanently alter the physique of the child and cause them pain without their consent. These are the harms I keep bringing up as to why circumcision should be banned. You haven't said why these aren't harms or why these harms aren't outweighed by any benefits circumcision might bring or the right of the parents to express their religion through their child.

philologos wrote: »

Which is inconsistent with holding to moral subjectivism? - The question holds how do you know that what you hold to be moral is right? Or indeed, how do you know that what you hold to be immoral is wrong? That is if you have no objective standard and no objective standard by which to determine what is right, and what is wrong for all men.

In a sense, on what basis can you say that your ideology is superior to the ideology of Muslims and Jews in the absence of an objective authority that is binding over all men.

I think moral subjectivity is more legitimate than objectivity. Objectivity requires the person expressing their morality to declare from where they get their objective morality and why this is a legitimate source. Essentially for any religious person if their objective morality is to be taken seriously then they have to prove that 1)There is a divine being from whom we get morality 2)That the existence of this divine being renders any morality that comes from them as being defacto "right". Those are two very big asks which I have never seen effectively answered.

Subjective morality, on the other hand, means we can't fob off our decisions about what's right and wrong on "because God says so". It means we have to constantly re-evaluate what we see as moral and it means we can question current moral standards that we don't have to blindly accept because "God says so". It means that when we get things wrong, as has happened throughout history (slavery, subjugation of women, rampant use of the death penalty) we re-evaluate where we get our morality from and we can make cases for what is and isn't right based on our experiences of the world and the society we want to live in. A generally good rule for deciding what is and isn't moral is living in a world where everyone suffers to the minimum extent. Why is this the case? Because in such a world I will suffer less and so will those I care about, so that's a world I want to live in. Not allowing people to slice apart a boy's genitals without his consent is entirely consistent with this viewpoint.

philologos wrote: »

I'm advocating that the status quo remain. You are the one suggesting that circumcision should be illegal. Since you're the one advocating such a radical change, I think the onus is on you and others to demonstrate how circumcision is actually harmful or detrimental to the individual.

If you can't do that, then there's no good reason for making it illegal as far as I can see anyway.

But I've said so many times why I believe circumcision is wrong and why I believe it's legitimate to force this viewpoint on others by way of legislation. You haven't said why forced circumcision is so worthwhile as to remain in law regardless of the interest of the child.

philologos wrote: »

Is it objectively wrong? - Is it wrong irrespective of what you think or what others think?

If it is objectively wrong, there is an objective standard which should be binding on all men that you are appealing to. And if there is an objective standard, there is a reason why that standard exists.

Otherwise, it is inconsistent.

It's no more objectively wrong than anything I believe to be wrong- nomoreso than murder, rape, theft etc.

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Morals are to a large extent subjective, however, minimising suffering is something we need to do as a society for everyone's benefit. Causing such pain to a defenceless baby needlessly causes suffering, that's why it's wrong.

The problem is - if morality is subjective, how do you know what is best for society? How do you know what is beneficial for society? If there's no objective standard, there's also no way to demonstrate explicitly that your way is best.

Unless, there is an objective standard of right and wrong between us all, then moral speculation is like chasing the wind. It is pointless.

As I've mentioned to Piste, society can be an ass. Society can at times promote things which are wholly immoral, even when they are clearly wrong. For example, eugenics. Subjective morality actually doesn't work in real life, that's why I don't believe in it.

Edit: I find it even more bizarre that some people will claim that a harmless procedure is abuse, while on the other hand claiming that the death of 50 million children each year globally via abortion-by-choice is OK.

It's not harmless, it's incredibly painful.

Do you object to to minimising needless suffering/pain?

steddyeddy

I had mine done as a baby out of some sort of family tradition. I said before It doesnt bother me but thats me. I dont think an adult has a right to do it to a child. I certainly dont hold it against my mother though. It doesnt hurt and has some advantages.

philologos

Piste wrote: »

I think moral subjectivity is more legitimate than objectivity. Objectivity requires the person expressing their morality to declare from where they get their objective morality and why this is a legitimate source. Essentially for any religious person if their objective morality is to be taken seriously then they have to prove that 1)There is a divine being from whom we get morality 2)That the existence of this divine being renders any morality that comes from them as being defacto "right". Those are two very big asks which I have never seen effectively answered.

Subjectivity doesn't work. That's my problem with it.

Subjectivity works on the principle that humans define what is right and what is wrong, both on a personal level, and then possibly on a societal level.

However, the question still arises, how can you be sure that you're right?
And for society, how can you be sure that society is right?

Indeed, if you wish for a personal view to have jurisdiction over others, you must also be able to explain how that view is objectively binding on others (not just in your mind, but also in reality).

The question is, why is circumcising a child is objectively wrong, meaning wrong for all people. You seem to believe this rather than simply, I think it is wrong, but other's mightn't.

If this is true, what standard are you basing it on, and what is the source of this standard?

Piste wrote: »

Subjective morality, on the other hand, means we can't fob off our decisions about what's right and wrong on "because God says so". It means we have to constantly re-evaluate what we see as moral and it means we can question current moral standards that we don't have to blindly accept because "God says so". It means that when we get things wrong, as has happened throughout history (slavery, subjugation of women, rampant use of the death penalty) we re-evaluate where we get our morality from and we can make cases for what is and isn't right based on our experiences of the world and the society we want to live in. A generally good rule for deciding what is and isn't moral is living in a world where everyone suffers to the minimum extent. Why is this the case? Because in such a world I will suffer less and so will those I care about, so that's a world I want to live in. Not allowing people to slice apart a boy's genitals without his consent is entirely consistent with this viewpoint.

Which is all nonsense. I don't fob off all decisions on the basis of God said so actually

For the record, I don't believe that God has advocated slavery, or subjugation of women. I don't believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral, but God in His mercy sent Jesus Christ to atone for sin, so its purpose is now fulfilled from a Christian perspective.

Rather I understand that in every situation there is something right and there is something wrong. God has given us standards to better help us see how we can do what is good rather than what is evil, and it is on the basis of these standards that we can better see this. Morality isn't a matter of personal preference, but rather it is a statement of reality, it is true that X is good and it is true that Y is evil, rather than saying, I want X to be good, or I want Y to be evil. The latter is open to horrific abuse, because good and evil can be whatever the heck you want them to be.

Piste wrote: »

But I've said so many times why I believe circumcision is wrong and why I believe it's legitimate to force this viewpoint on others by way of legislation. You haven't said why forced circumcision is so worthwhile as to remain in law regardless of the interest of the child.

I don't think your reasons are actually good, and are actually inconsistent in practice. The simple reason I don't advocate banning circumcision is because I don't believe it is harmful or detrimental to the child. If it isn't harmful, there's no good reason to put red tape all over it, unless you have an ideological bent against specific creeds.

Piste wrote: »

It's no more objectively wrong than anything I believe to be wrong- nomoreso than murder, rape, theft etc.

Objective - Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual
Subjective - Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

I believe that even if my mind wasn't contemplating these ethical issues, or even if everyone thought that murder was OK. Or even if I was dead. These things would be still immoral.

Why? - Because moral claims are about reality. If I was dead, and things were still the same. I can still presume that the laws of gravity will remain the same. Even if nobody did what was right, and chose to do evil, their deeds would still be evil.

I believe that murder (including the forms of murder that we like to call under different names), rape, theft (including the forms of theft that we like to call under different names) and so on are objectively wrong.

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Piste wrote: »

I think moral subjectivity is more legitimate than objectivity. Objectivity requires the person expressing their morality to declare from where they get their objective morality and why this is a legitimate source. Essentially for any religious person if their objective morality is to be taken seriously then they have to prove that 1)There is a divine being from whom we get morality 2)That the existence of this divine being renders any morality that comes from them as being defacto "right". Those are two very big asks which I have never seen effectively answered.

Subjectivity doesn't work. That's my problem with it.

Subjectivity works on the principle that humans define what is right and what is wrong, both on a personal level, and then possibly on a societal level.

However, the question still arises, how can you be sure that you're right?
And for society, how can you be sure that society is right?

Indeed, if you wish for a personal view to have jurisdiction over others, you must also be able to explain how that view is objectively binding on others (not just in your mind, but also in reality).

The question is, why is circumcising a child is objectively wrong, meaning wrong for all people. You seem to believe this rather than simply, I think it is wrong, but other's mightn't.

If this is true, what standard are you basing it on, and what is the source of this standard?

Piste wrote: »

Subjective morality, on the other hand, means we can't fob off our decisions about what's right and wrong on "because God says so". It means we have to constantly re-evaluate what we see as moral and it means we can question current moral standards that we don't have to blindly accept because "God says so". It means that when we get things wrong, as has happened throughout history (slavery, subjugation of women, rampant use of the death penalty) we re-evaluate where we get our morality from and we can make cases for what is and isn't right based on our experiences of the world and the society we want to live in. A generally good rule for deciding what is and isn't moral is living in a world where everyone suffers to the minimum extent. Why is this the case? Because in such a world I will suffer less and so will those I care about, so that's a world I want to live in. Not allowing people to slice apart a boy's genitals without his consent is entirely consistent with this viewpoint.

Which is all nonsense. I don't fob off all decisions on the basis of God said so actually

For the record, I don't believe that God has advocated slavery, or subjugation of women. I don't believe that the death penalty is inherently immoral, but God in His mercy sent Jesus Christ to atone for sin, so its purpose is now fulfilled from a Christian perspective.

Rather I understand that in every situation there is something right and there is something wrong. God has given us standards to better help us see how we can do what is good rather than what is evil, and it is on the basis of these standards that we can better see this. Morality isn't a matter of personal preference, but rather it is a statement of reality, it is true that X is good and it is true that Y is evil, rather than saying, I want X to be good, or I want Y to be evil. The latter is open to horrific abuse, because good and evil can be whatever the heck you want them to be.

Piste wrote: »

But I've said so many times why I believe circumcision is wrong and why I believe it's legitimate to force this viewpoint on others by way of legislation. You haven't said why forced circumcision is so worthwhile as to remain in law regardless of the interest of the child.

I don't think your reasons are actually good, and are actually inconsistent in practice. The simple reason I don't advocate banning circumcision is because I don't believe it is harmful or detrimental to the child. If it isn't harmful, there's no good reason to put red tape all over it, unless you have an ideological bent against specific creeds.

Piste wrote: »

It's no more objectively wrong than anything I believe to be wrong- nomoreso than murder, rape, theft etc.

Objective - Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual
Subjective - Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions

I believe that even if my mind wasn't contemplating these ethical issues, or even if everyone thought that murder was OK. Or even if I was dead. These things would be still immoral.

Why? - Because moral claims are about reality. If I was dead, and things were still the same. I can still presume that the laws of gravity will remain the same. Even if nobody did what was right, and chose to do evil, their deeds would still be evil.

I believe that murder (including the forms of murder that we like to call under different names), rape, theft (including the forms of theft that we like to call under different names) and so on are objectively wrong.

All the above doesn't change the fact it makes no sense to needlessly cause suffering to a baby.

Sea Filly

Definitely against it.

Question for the men. Do ye not find it a bit offensive that it's always claimed in countries where it's commonplace that it's more hygienic to be circumcised?

I mean, WTactualF? Any uncircumcised man who practises good hygiene should have no issues whatsoever.