EPTFemale Genital Mutilation - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 29 2013 06:10 Reason wrote: An example of an objective truth would be: you just asked me what an example of an objective truth is. Did I, though? One could argue that I asked nothing, and that the web page merely communicated text to you; one could argue that I'm a figment of your imagination; one could argue that you're dreaming; one could argue that you're misremembering what I asked. One could argue any number of things. It just so happens that most of the assumptions built into our practical epistemology are pretty reasonable, so nobody really comes up with things like "yeah, but how do you know causality will work next time?" to dismiss objectively true things like that dropping a ball makes it fall. | ||
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 29 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote: Did I, though? One could argue that I asked nothing, and that the web page merely communicated text to you; one could argue that I'm a figment of your imagination; one could argue that you're dreaming; one could argue that you're misremembering what I asked. One could argue any number of things. It just so happens that most of the assumptions built into our practical epistemology are pretty reasonable, so nobody really comes up with things like "yeah, but how do you know causality will work next time?" to dismiss objectively true things like that dropping a ball makes it fall. What's the relevance of this kind of thinking in terms of discussing whether morality is objective or not? Do you agree that morality is subjective, but you're then taking it even further to say that everything is subjective? I'd also just like to point out that we both know I'm not dreaming, I'm not remembering wrong and you did just ask me that question. At what point does arguing to the contrary become supportable? | ||
|
LeCastor
France234 Posts
http://stopfgmmiddleeast.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/clear-signal-against-fgm-egyptian-dar-al-ifta-snubs-islamists/ But it will be a big strugle to remove a 3000 years tradition, in a country where nearly half the population can't read. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 29 2013 06:26 Reason wrote: What's the relevance of this kind of thinking in terms of discussing whether morality is objective or not? Do you agree that morality is subjective, but you're then taking it even further to say that everything is subjective? I think morality is objective, because basic axioms like "humans have equal ontological dignity" are, to my mind, self-evident, and not worth debating. From a few such axioms, one can attempt to construct a consistent moral system. I'm saying that your arguments against morality being objective are merely toned down versions of arguments against anything being objective. I'd also just like to point out that we both know I'm not dreaming, I'm not remembering wrong and you did just ask me that question. At what point does arguing to the contrary become supportable? And we both know that anyone who thinks that human beings have the same moral weight as a grain of sand is simply wrong. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 29 2013 07:01 Shiori wrote: I think morality is objective, because basic axioms like "humans have equal ontological dignity" are, to my mind, self-evident, and not worth debating. From a few such axioms, one can attempt to construct a consistent moral system. I'm saying that your arguments against morality being objective are merely toned down versions of arguments against anything being objective. And we both know that anyone who thinks that human beings have the same moral weight as a grain of sand is simply wrong. Okay well I guess this is where my understanding ends and yours begins because I have no idea why you'd equate what I'm saying with the declaration that nothing is objective. I view morality being subjective as self-evident given that it's a human construct. I think the fact that the universe exists and that we live in it are two objective truths. I would never argue that nothing is objective. "And we both know that anyone who thinks that human beings have the same moral weight as a grain of sand is simply wrong" What do you mean by that? | ||
|
quonzoran
Germany31 Posts
For a while, I found the discussion really interesting, important questions, can culture justify sth. like that, how can we justify going there, wanting to change sth. about FGM, what would be "good" or effective ways to do it. Now it turned into a very intellectual discussion "is there real objectivity". Kind of sad, guess, it killed the actual discussion on the topic. Wouldn't it be better, for those who want to discuss philosophy about subjectivity and objectivity in a new thread? Maybe too late - I guess, all those, who were interested in FGM porbably all left ...  | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 29 2013 07:27 quonzoran wrote: Hey, does anybody still really follow the actual subject of this thread? For a while, I found the discussion really interesting, important questions, can culture justify sth. like that, how can we justify going there, wanting to change sth. about FGM, what would be "good" or effective ways to do it. Now it turned into a very intellectual discussion "is there real objectivity". Kind of sad, guess, it killed the actual discussion on the topic. Wouldn't it be better, for those who want to discuss philosophy about subjectivity and objectivity in a new thread? Maybe too late - I guess, all those, who were interested in FGM porbably all left ... Objective was mentioned on page 2 for the first time in this thread and subjective was mentioned for the first time on page 6. I think the other conversations died down on their own as opposed to people commandeering the thread for their own purposes as you seem to be making out. You want to revive the original discussion? Be my guest. I've said all I have to say about FGM (it's bad) but I'd gladly read other peoples opinions or discussions on this topic if they're willing to provide them... Great news! On July 29 2013 06:32 LeCastor wrote: Al Azhar, the highest religious authority in Egypt has already condamned FGM. The practice is also criminalized. http://stopfgmmiddleeast.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/clear-signal-against-fgm-egyptian-dar-al-ifta-snubs-islamists/ But it will be a big strugle to remove a 3000 years tradition, in a country where nearly half the population can't read. | ||
|
Fenris420
Sweden213 Posts
On the other hand, the argument "Everything is subjective" is a cop out. It may or may not be true, but hold no practical value as a standpoint. It cripples your ability to affirm your own beliefs and thus makes them impotent. There is no such thing as objective truth. This is perhaps the only thing we can be rather certain of. However, in science, the notion of absolute truth is generally marginalised. The reason for this is fairly simple. We know we dont 'really' know anything, but we still want to be able to predict and understand the world. So in order to do that, we let the word truth be transformed from meaning "absolute truth" into meaning "true beyond reasonable doubt". Reasonable is a subjective word yes, but so is the world. The foundation for science is to know this and circumvent it. Obviously, science does fairly well. We have space ships, lasers and nowadays even quantum computers. Obviously we are doing something right, and objectively so. We are talking to each other on the internet, it is not a subjective statement at all. When we talk about ojectively true things, we mean true in the sense that science considers things to be true. We do not mean absolute objective truth because that is a bog of needlessly contrived philosophy. Morals truths are always objective, we just don't know how to find them. To claim that the moral values of Mullah Omar are as valuable as the moral values of the Dalai Lama is absurd. And even if you do, there is no doubt which is the better moral code to have taught to a lot of people. Objectively, the outcome of one set of values is better than the other. If nothing else we can look at the world map and see clear divides of morals and oppinions. The world is also divided into other parts, some that have greater wellbeing, wealth, education, freedom and security than other parts. The maps you get with both of these divides are almost identical. Does that make the western world morally superior? No. And it is by no means morally perfected. It does however mean that the western world is objectively better constructed in its foundation. We can learn how to understand everything about this world because of science as long as we apply the scientific method to it. With proper teaching, this knowledge can then be passed on and help people in any manner of ways. This is obvious in my oppinion by looking at how much we know today, as opposed to just a few decades ago. Why should there be some kind of invisible barrier that states we can never understand what constitutes morals or what is objectively good or bad? If we cannot understand it, then why do we even have it to begin with? How come morals differ depending on where you are born? How come morals change over time? Clearly there are observable data points regarding morals and that puts it in the domain of science. We have not spent thousands of years trying to understand our own minds without results and there is no reason to beleive that there is nothing left for us to understand either. Because of that, I would like to argue that based on what we know so far, the following is true; - Individuals should be free to chose for themselves, at least what happens to their own life - The group should have tolerance for individuals who disagree with or disobey them. - Popular oppinion and tradition does not give inherent value to ridiculous beliefs. All in all, the issue is not whether mutilation is wrong, but what to do about it. In my oppinion, all we need to do is give people the knowledge that we have and then we can let them decide for themselves. The only problem with that is how tradition and peer pressure keeps people from even doubting their own ideologies in the first place. However, with proper scientific education, this should be the first and most important lesson to learn. Ironically, we might need to force our "tolerance and open mindedness" on people before we can get results. Certainly no easy standpoint. | ||
|
Mvrio
689 Posts
| ||
|
aNGryaRchon
United States438 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 30 2013 10:29 aNGryaRchon wrote: Would any woman despite religion really naturally think it is ok for them to have their clitorises cut? the answer to that question, literally, is yes. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 30 2013 10:32 dAPhREAk wrote: the answer to that question, literally, is yes. Why's that? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
mostly for additional stimulation during sex. people pierce their clits. obviously not what is being discussed, which is why i said literally. | ||
|
aNGryaRchon
United States438 Posts
On July 30 2013 10:32 dAPhREAk wrote: the answer to that question, literally, is yes. Why so? Look, this is not like some in-and-out clinic visit. Just the very idea of it sends a billion megawatt chills down my spine, and I don't even have a clitoris. I imagine the procedure to be crude, bloody, reckless, and totally terrifying. If this is true, as I am sure these African woman know, would they really volunteer themselves to undergo it? Other that religious/cultural justifications, I really can't think of any reason to do it. It is like a totally reasonable man in the US volunteering to cut off his fingers in the same crude manner for no reason at all. | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
On July 30 2013 10:40 aNGryaRchon wrote: Why so? Look, this is not like some in-and-out clinic visit. Just the very idea of it sends a billion megawatt chills down my spine, and I don't even have a clitoris. I imagine the procedure to be crude, bloody, reckless, and totally terrifying. If this is true, as I am sure these African woman know, would they really volunteer themselves to undergo it? Other that religious/cultural justifications, I really can't think of any reason to do it. It is like a totally reasonable man in the US volunteering to cut off his fingers in the same crude manner for no reason at all. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fatou-wurie/innerstanding-the-ritual-_1_b_3625301.html | ||
|
aNGryaRchon
United States438 Posts
On July 30 2013 10:45 Mothra wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fatou-wurie/innerstanding-the-ritual-_1_b_3625301.html We really need education. It seems that the more uneducated a country is, the more prone it is to such abuses. | ||
| ||
