Circumcision, hip or lame? (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
I have no idea what you trying to say here, and I think you're missing my point. You said circumcision is bad because it's a form of control. I said that control is inevitable and that a form of control isn't bad if it doesn't harm anyone or fundamentally changes someone's identity.
child abuse: control + harm -> bad
circumcision: control + no harm or fundamental identity change -> not bad
Your counterargument?
Rather the opposite. I tried to show that circumcision is even less harmful than being raised by low class parents, passing on their 'low class traditions', even if they don't raise their son to do anything considered immoral. You have to agree with that. And now my question to you is: do you consider it immoral, when a child is raised by low class parents? If you do, you consider almost any situation a child can be in immoral. If you don't, how the hell can you consider circumcision immoral?
child abuse: control + harm -> bad
circumcision: control + no harm or fundamental identity change -> not bad
Your counterargument?
Now you're just talking damage control. "Well he's gonna be hurt worse with those people, so let's just minimize the damage." Is this an official admission that circumcision, whether in the exercise of control or the act itself, is harmful? 
I guess I'm not quite buying this argument that it causes no harm. Mind you I don't have any technical knowledge about this but Seven mentioned that it reduces sexual experience. If so, that is a form of harm. It's pretty obvious that this is the motive in the female case, so it seems to me safe to assume it's the same in the male case.
This is a different question, though. I think you're asking whether someone who is not aware of the harm he is doing can be morally responsible for it. To which the answer is (obviously?) no.
This is a different question, though. I think you're asking whether someone who is not aware of the harm he is doing can be morally responsible for it. To which the answer is (obviously?) no.
I already mentioned that I considered the reduction in sensitivity (which a lot of people actually consider as an advantage) obviously neglectible when deciding whether it's harmful or not, to which nobody protested. Then you went on to say that it is a form of control and therefore is immoral. I showed that not every form of control is immoral/bad because control is inevitable, to which nobody protested. And now you're going back to discussing whether it's harmful or not?
Female circumcision is a whole other ballpark, as it disallows them to have sex at all or causes great pain during sex. The male equivalent would be chopping of the head or something.
So you're implying that parents who circumsize their child are consciously doing something unethical? If not, answer my original question.
Female circumcision is a whole other ballpark, as it disallows them to have sex at all or causes great pain during sex. The male equivalent would be chopping of the head or something.
So you're implying that parents who circumsize their child are consciously doing something unethical? If not, answer my original question.
I already mentioned that I considered the reduction in sensitivity (which a lot of people actually consider as an advantage) obviously neglectible when deciding whether it's harmful or not, to which nobody protested. Then you went on to say that it is a form of control and therefore is immoral. I showed that not every form of control is immoral/bad because control is inevitable, to which nobody protested. And now you're going back to discussing whether it's harmful or not?
Female circumcision is a whole other ballpark, as it disallows them to have sex at all or causes great pain during sex. The male equivalent would be chopping of the head or something.
So you're implying that parents who circumsize their child are consciously doing something unethical? If not, answer my original question.
Female circumcision is a whole other ballpark, as it disallows them to have sex at all or causes great pain during sex. The male equivalent would be chopping of the head or something.
So you're implying that parents who circumsize their child are consciously doing something unethical? If not, answer my original question.
It's like the race speech thing. If you go around calling people niggers and you don't see anything wrong with that, you're morally just. But that doesn't mean you're not causing harm.
EDIT: Btw this is where JuveRev's objective morality really burns cause conflicting parties can be morally just at the same time.
No, the question is whose judgment are we talking about? The woman who killed her kid with prayer may have been morally just, thought it was all a trial of faith etc. But so what? The kid died. So we, as "society" say she's guilty. And we can say that parents who circumcize, if that's harmful, are guilty, even if they don't know it's harmful.
It's like the race speech thing. If you go around calling people niggers and you don't see anything wrong with that, you're morally just. But that doesn't mean you're not causing harm.
EDIT: Btw this is where JuveRev's objective morality really burns cause conflicting parties can be morally just at the same time.
It's like the race speech thing. If you go around calling people niggers and you don't see anything wrong with that, you're morally just. But that doesn't mean you're not causing harm.
EDIT: Btw this is where JuveRev's objective morality really burns cause conflicting parties can be morally just at the same time.
No, I did not say that. I said IF YOU KNOW that people are offended to be called niggers THEN IT IS IMMORAL. You really need to pay more attention to IFs, they are important.
If someone doesn't know what the word nigger means in American culture.. perhaps he just came to the country and he heard the word on tv, doesn't know the meaning behind it. How can he be immoral to call someone a nigger with the best intentions?
If someone doesn't know what the word nigger means in American culture.. perhaps he just came to the country and he heard the word on tv, doesn't know the meaning behind it. How can he be immoral to call someone a nigger with the best intentions?
Okay then. It is objectively immoral to call someone a 'nigger' when you know you are goinf to hurt the person. Again, if I were a redneck who believed otherwise, it wouldn't matter would it? Because morality is not relative, If it were, than this sort of racism is only immoral for those who think it is immoral.
You completely ignored what I just said. If I knew I was being hurtful and still called him a 'nigger' then I am being objectively immoral. You said the other day that it is all relative to one's moral standard, this is what I ask you.
If my moral standard did not think it was immoral to call him a nigger despite knowing it would hurt him, does that make my act moral?
If my moral standard did not think it was immoral to call him a nigger despite knowing it would hurt him, does that make my act moral?
