Who cares what you think!

I agree, if moral relativism is taken universally (eg: "all moral systems everywhere are equally valid for everything") then it defeats morality as a whole.

But moral relativism isn't taken universally. Instead, moral relativism is usually taken to mean that certain moral systems are appropriate for certain circumstances. For instance, moral relativists often argue that ritualistic animal sacrifice is appropriate in shamanic cultures, but they won't argue that it is appropriate everywhere. Or, a personal example, I believe that circumcision is disgusting but I nonetheless tolerate the Christians and Jews who perform it on their children.

I just see moral relativism as a temporary suspension of moral judgment, not a moral judgment itself. When I was an anthropology major I had to do it all the time, not because I don't have opinions but because my opinions were not supposed to interfere with my observation and assessment of other cultures.

That said, moral relativism can be a useful tool but I don't think it can be made a tenable philosophy, much less a universality. As long as moral systems contradict each other, you can't claim they are all correct.

 

i'd rather not discuss. i'll just let it be there for people to ponder in themselves. i've been through many states of being...

 

In a quasi threadjack, runner, what about circumcision do you find so repulsing? I'm neither advocating or condeming it I just know nothing more than a piece of flesh is removed. In doing so I assume it decreases infection risks and makes sex for your partner more pleasurable.

As far as the main thread goes, I don't see how letting everyone believe what they want to do is self contradicting. I should think opinions of others should still matter. Just because we are all unique does not mean we are not extremely similar to our elders in our culture. I should think that the advice/opinions of one's elders should hold just as much weight in a relativistic morality as any other kind of morality.

 

In my opinion there is no such thing as morality. We can think about these things because we have become self-aware, civilized, and reproduce on a wide scale.

Penn & Teller do a Bullshit! segment on circumcision. It's interesting. People make a lot of money doing it and its just that, bullshit...the skin is there for a reason.

 

Honestly why fight something you couldnt have possably been able to control?

 

interesting topic, for sure. hmm. good question. I have thought about it too, without reaching any conclusion. I believe in the possibility that some questions just don't have answers, not humanly comprehensible ones, at least...Definitely a paradox.

 

I think morality is a simple ideology that, if followed by everyone, would benefit everyone.

Of course, since not everyone will respect a given moral system, morality is really more of an ideal than reality. And there are other "moral" systems which are not really moral at all in the sense that they do not really improve the quality of life, even if everyone obeyed them. Take religion. A lot of Christians say "If everyone was Christian the world would be a better place." Well think about it, there are Muslims saying the exact same thing about Islam. In fact, most people on Earth are religious and yet the world still sucks. But even in an ideal world where everyone is faithful and everyone obeys their faith there would still be conflicts between the different faiths. This convinces me religion is less a moral system than a political/social/cultural one. More basic ideas, however, like patience and compassion, could be extended universally and universally benefit people. So I personally equate compassion with morality.

Even though morality is often seen as idealistic, I strongly believe it is ultimately a pragmatic thing. We shouldn't need gods or laws to enforce morality; if people actually practiced it morality would reward us itself. There would be peace on Earth.

I think my family would make for a pretty good case study of circumcision: I am not circumcised but I have an identical twin and he is circumcised. Weird, I know. Anyway, I can't speak for him, so I'll reflect on my own experiences with keeping my foreskin:

I've never had any foreskin-related hygeine issues or infections, and in this age of soap and antiseptics I don't imagine many people do.

As for sex, those claims are definitely false. If anything, a foreskin increases my sexual pleasure because the foreskin is a very sensitive, erogenous region of the body. Also, when uncircumcised guys have sex, the foreskin rolls back, revealing the glans, just like people who are circumcised. It definitely won't decrease your partner's pleasure, think about it, if anything the added girth of a foreskin would slightly increase female pleasure. Anyway, my partners have never complained about it. You've just gotta keep it clean if you expect to get head. [/grossness]

But all that is beside the point. The real reason I oppose circumcision is because it is immensely painful for the baby. But so what? It's not like the baby will remember, right? Actually, experiences during a human's first days of life are very important to that child's development. Mutilation is not only a cruel way to welcome your child to the world, but I suspect it could actually impact the child's development. And for what? As I mentioned earlier, there's no problem with having a foreskin. There may be historical reasons for circumcision--like cleanliness--but for most societies those reasons are now obsolete. For all these reasons, I consider circumcision an act of mutilation, not one of medicine or religion.

 

My assertion of it being more pleasurable for your partner is based off my none existant knowledge of un-circumsizeddoom. I think being "cut" creats more of a "barb" if you will. This barb being more "defined" when retracted rubs better than if the "sharp" edges were less defined. As far as it being something that can negatively affect the child in its adult years, I'm unsure but I lean to the idea that it is relatively harmless to our personalities. If trauma at that extremely young age is so important there should be a difference between babies that are delivered by Cesearian Section versus normal birth. Normal birth has to hurt a Hell of a lot. Imagine squeezing your your head through something so tight that it actually pushes together the bones in your skull. Cutting the ambilical cord should hurt a lot too (if there are nerve ending in it). Some psychologists believe that it is very important to have the mother and child near each other and breastfeeding very soon after birth and for quite some time. This is because the bonding between them actually may affect the way your DNA "shows itself". It is also a great way to get some good feeling Oxytocin flowing through the baby and mother, which is essential in ALL bonding. But that is hormonal, I don't see where cutting the baby really effects hormones, the mother doesn't do it so no association is made between the two (pain and mom). The pain itself probably helps Hebbian learning (neurons that fire together wire together) in so far as the sympathetic nervous system is involved. That should be a study done, if circumcisions during babyhood seem to negatively affect an individual's personality, sex-life, or risk of developing a psychosis of any sort. I'll have to check google scholar on that. A perfect case study would be you and your brother, are thier any major differences between you two in those areas? But I would most certainly disagree that it isn't an act of religion. Acts of religion aren't always happy fun times. If Abraham had murdered his son he would have been doing it out of an act of religion. Is it mutilatio? Yes. Religious in some if not most cases? Yes. Circumcision itself may be pointless but it is a tradition practiced by many in America so most penises girls are gonna see will be as such. The chance that a girl could be slightly or really "wierded out" and thus you miss a fornication oppurtunity seems like reason enough to do it. I suppose it's one of those unfortunate things that because everyone else is doing it means that it's better for one to do it. Unless I'm wrong on the more pleasurable for the partner / it doesn't affect one's personality or tendency to become psychologically impaired.

 

Good post. Bringing a lot of knowledge to the table. But I disagree with most of it.

As for the "barb" effect, and speaking from uncircumcised-dom, I can tell you this is untrue. Damn, I don't wanna be graphic about it, but I guess I'll have to in order to dispell the rumors. The foreskin doesn't just stay put during sex; it is usually pulled back well past the edge of the glans. That said, I don't think it really plays any role in sex at all. Definitely not reason enough to mutilate your children, anyway. And as for it freaking girls out when they see it; they usually won't see it. Since my penis is already erect when they are down there, and when it's erect the foreskin is pulled back, the foreskin is basically unnoticeable. No girl I've been with has ever even mentioned it.

Sorry, I'm at a loss here. If this were true we would probably see apes cutting off foreskins as well, and other examples of mutilation in the animal kingdom, but 99% of the time I would imagine do-it-yourself surgery would not be an evolved trait or, if it's a learned one, I can't see how it would confer any kind of biological advantage. It seems more like a liability. Bleeding, infection, the knife/rock/glass takes of a little too much, etc.

As for circumcision psychologically damaging people; I'm not sure. That's really just speculation on my part. But think about it, many equally painful experiences can cause trauma later in life; why would circumcision be an exception? Also, the effects might not be so clear; they might not be negative, they might just be desensitizing. Most religions that condone circumcision are prone to violent wars. Just thinking out loud.

I'm sure circumcision had a use a some time--probably cleanliness--but I think that reason is now obsolete. The only reason we still do it is because it has become a sacred rite in many religions. I go with the flow on a lot of issues, but I don't think I would when it comes to mutilating my children.

 

Touche, I was just assuming it has an even more noticable edge but I'll take your word for it. And yeah I guess a girl you wanna sleep with probably is only going to see the erect penis and won't notice until the deed is done, and then it's too late, DUN DUN DUN lol (for some reason I jsut pictured a really cheesy '30s movie).

My post was more thinking outloud than actually based on anything. I don't think the surgery itself is what I was going at more of the fact that it causes pain which in turn causes, most likely, an activation of sympathetic nervous system and consequently the parasympathetic NS. In doing so I hypothesize that it better enables the child to use it, sorta like practice works when one plays sports but not quite. But that is all jsut random speculation that involves me piecing together bits of knowledge I've retained from my Natural Science Psych and Dev. Psych and Behav. Neuropsych. Key words bits and pieces.

I fully agree that circumcision probably has no real value today, unless I'm right about the two points I raised (more than likely I'm not). And I def. agree that it was probably started because it was more hygenic back in the day. My kids will most likely have it done due to I'll most likely be marrying a slightly religious girl whom I am currently dating. Otherwise it isn't too big a deal. This is a good "banter" / debate I kill for this shit .

 

Seriously guys, if you are into this watch Penn & Teller Bullshit! on circumcision, it is really good and quite entertaining. They address a lot of controversial issues, and I always seem to side with their libertarian atheist views. I wonder why.