Victor wrote:
i don't judge circumcision solely by my personal ethical standard. rather, I take the principles we all (I hope) accept -- basic humanistic ethics -- and show how these principled are contradicted by circumcision;
Principles we all accept? Humanistic ethics? I'm not sure you are aware of the definition of ethics. Remember, ethics is exactly like judicial laws, only judicial laws have a distinct quality no other set of *norms* possess. Ethics is a system of norms, exactly like the body of judicial laws (not content but form). They are exactly the same animal: *norms* (rules, if you prefer).
From a clearly, secular perspective (this is the only one you have available to you) you need to show me the source of these these norms. In other words, who got together and said this is ethical and this is not. If you believe that, these are universal principles that humans have discovered, then you got a problem.
the sole reason you don't consider circumcision unethical is because your ethical belief system contains an explicit exception; 'other reasons notwithstanding, infant circumcision isn't unethical'.
Ok, you are saying, look at the characteristics of action A, then look at the characteristics of action B. You will see that they hold the same qualities. So, if you consider A to be unethical, you must consider B to be. Is this your reasoning?
On that argument, I clearly see flaws.
In short, what is being done here is the demonstration of circumcision's unethicality by others' standard, not by my -- and I certainly hope your ethics is among those others, prohibiting arbitrary infant mutilation (except when it comes to circumcision, you see). The situation here is kinda like coming up to someone who is a skeptic in all other respects but believed JE, and saying; "See, your believing JE is irrational by the very standards you hold, and you think otherwise simply because you don't apply those standards to JE"
Yes, I guess that is what your argument is. It obvious, of course that I don't agree that A=B.
Now it is possible that you sincerely believe that "legal" implies "ethical"; but if so, you are a very, very bad person.
No, it does not imply it, as it would not mean that I think cats implies dogs because I say both are mammals.
No, it's not. A law is enacted with the purpose of creating a certain social environment. Laws are enacted in sync with ethical beliefs only in countries which have moral-police-type of thing; otherwise, helping little old ladies across the street would have been a law.
Victor, the *what is* and the *what ought to be* is clearly what laws are all about. Maybe a little help here with definitions. Law=norm=rule of conduct. So, the State passes a rule of conduct so that you and I act (or not act) like we ought to act.
All system of norms whether judicial or ethical want to be in sync with the highest value of all norm systems: what is good. In the case of these two systems, what is the common good.
Ethical belief to not have to pass through the rigourous test of heteromony. This is why, you can trumpet yours to be superior. Your autonomy in choosing them allows you the comfort of self regulation.
Not the case with legal norms. They must pass the test of heteronomy which is a much higher standard. Why isn't helping an old lady across the street mandatory, because the right to choose to do it above it. These are the kinds of considerations legislators and judges have to make constantly, trying to attain to the highest level of justice.
Justice system does not rule on ethical arguments at all. it rules on legal arguments. legislature might take some ethical arguments into account -- but only some.
I have no idea what you are saying here. With the expression, *it rules on legal arguments*, what do you mean? Do you understand the process of formation of the law, in modern times? Do you understand why a law can be *unconstitutional* and why that is so important.
Are you sure how ethics are formed? Do you understand that (and this is the only option you have) it is body of laws too created in a similar way as judicial norms?
That's simply wrong. Enacting ethics is not the purpose of the Roman legal system (on which US and british legal systems are based).
You are factually mistaken, US and British law are not based on Roman law (by the way, my country *is* based on codified law). US is and British law are based on *Common Law*
Common Law
No. All you are showing is that circumcision wasn't considered barbariuc and unethical by enough people in the past. Well, neither was slavery or gender inequality.
No, Victor, not the past. *Today* all judicial systems of the world consider circumcision not to be barbaric or unethical.
Oh, just to get this straight. It is unethical to force anyone to help old ladies across the street.
Smalso wrote:
Christian's reasoning about the power of the government to sanction brutality towards children is not only warped, but also scary.
I'm not advocating anything, or reasoning that the States should sanction brutality towards children. By the way, that *is* a strawman. I'm stating a *fact*: no State in the world currently holds circumcision to be barbaric or brutal (now you have added brutal).
None of them were brainwashed in any religious teachings.
So, I guess I was right.
Tesserat wrote:
If I wanted to clip a quarter inch off of each of my new born child's ears, would you say I had a right to do so?
It doesn't matter what I think. You don't, nor do I.
If you agree that I do have the right, is there any point at which you would draw the line?
Everybody, without exception must obey an objective line (judicial norm) as opposed to subjective one (ethical norms). This is a good thing. Imagine if each decided based on his or her own subjective line.
Or would what you think is right only depend on what is legal at the time?
This is where semantics gets in the way (confuses things). Let me repeat it.
TO SAY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS TO SAY I THINK IT IS RIGHT TO DO THIS.
The first is an observation of a objective condition, the second of subjective valuation.
I'm sorry about the caps, they are only as to make the text standout, (no shouting or emotion there)
So, to answer your question, I think most legal things today are the right thing to do and most importantly most illegal things to do are the wrong thing to do. I find very few exceptions.
Now, I think most everyone believes that the legal standard is a minimun level in terms of good. In that respect, I have a higher standard for doing.
With respect to the bad, I think the legal has most of it down. Some would argue that the bar is set really high in some Western Countries, some would argue not.
My obligation is to understand what is not allowed and adjust my behavior accordingly, even if I don't agree with it. (this pertains to prohibitions in the law.)
Victor wrote:
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you circumcized my father, prepare to die!
That sound really funny, did you intend the twist? ( of young guy fighting a really old guy)
