|
HeavansKeeper -> RE: Protecting your submissive (7/15/2008 8:08:25 AM)
|
My responses will be bold to avoid quote blocks.
We use deductive reasoning to determine ethics which are logically determined as being what is best for our society of individuals. This reasoning is influenced by our own unique culture, heritage, influences, and desires. Hence, the ethics we have determined to be objective generally (which means right in most cases, but not all) are still, in actuality, subjective to our own perspectives and reasoning.
Response: While I agree that the human condition does not allow for pure objectivity (and therefore by a strict definition, any) it is still something that must be sought. When the time can be afforded, it is safer.
You have used your deductive reasoning based on your American perspective to determine that ritual genital mutilation in other countries is wrong, where as they say it is right and something sacred. Who is right? Why, you, of course, because they are clearly subjectively determing their morality while your superior reasoning skills have provided the absolute answer.
Response: Principles are hard to build. They are obtuse and constantly get in the way of exceptions. With every exception to a principle, it is weakened. (That is to say the power of it is lowered. The power of a principle being to quickly decipher right from wrong.) "Killing innocent people is wrong." is a good principle, until you have to decide: Kill 100 to quite possibly save 10,000? But that is off topic. You make it appear as if the idea of FGM being wrong appeared to me in a dream. I apply what principles are related to the subject, and see what happens.
1) When the issue of genitals is not a factor, I see females and males as equals.
2) Consent must be earnest, and not coerced.
3) Harming creatures for no gain is wrong.
4) It is wrong to imprison the innocent.
(These numbers will be used as reference in this post only)
This should be a sufficient list to make my point. There are other principles in this world, of course.
Mutilating the gentials is harm. What is gained? As I understand it (which means if I am taught new facts to change my understanding my entire viewpoint may change) what is gained is an overall dominance over the female sex. The only "good" that comes of this is women being less interested in sex (as it is often painful, but more often simply not enjoyable) and hence less likely to commit infidelity. I'll be very fair and say it also allows the female to be accepted into a certain culture (even if I disagree with this aspect of the culture, and hence the reason for anyone to do it.)
I consider that a form of imprisonment, where no crime has occured, in violation with principle 4. (Being female is not a crime, otherwise being male would be a crime, as per #1). If one were to consider that FGM would not be necessary if these women were given the same rights as men, principle 1, then the act is considered a harm. It is a harm done to imprison people solely based on gender. Q.E.D. wrong. That's my humanistic deductive reasoning. You may call it "Americanized imperial inductive reasoning" if you're not a stickler for terms.
A quick note about consent: If a woman wants to tear up her lady parts, I'm fine with that, so long as the consent is not coerced, forced, or not at all given. I'm sure there are plenty of tales of women undergoing this procedure voluntarily, but enough aren't.
Further more, where is the deductive reasoning behind that statement? Have you visited those countries, seen the procedure? Witnessed first hand the effects of the operation and it's aftermath? Or are you just going by a highly biast and one-sided story in the New York Times written from the perspective of American ethics? Have your experiences ever included anything beyond the American one? If not, sounds pretty inductive to me.
Response: I have no need to visit those countries to reason deductively, as general agreeable terms are brought down to the level of individual occurence. You're confusing me, and are being either sarcastic or incorrect with the use of "inductive" in your last sentence. Inductive reasoning is taking limited observations and generalizing them to make an encompassing theory. That dog bit me => all dogs are mean. The questions you're asking are begging for someone to answer and reason inductively, subjectively. Your tone makes it sound as if you don't believe in logic, and what follows as a result of deduction is false. Again, I'm not against the use of inductive reasoning, but only when there's no time/effort left for deducing. While I have not had the deep immersion into the pro's of FGM, my thoughts are independent of the American ethics NYTimes articles, as you may re-read above.
Sounds like nothing more than personal egocentricness and American imperialism at it's finest. Arrogantly taking the perspective we have of human experience and implying it as the ultimate metaphysical one that everyone else obviosuly must share.
Response: Perhaps now the skeleton of what appeared to be arrogance has been shown. Perhaps my more thorough explanation of my viewpoints, and most important why I think that way, will make my posts look less like propaganda and more like reasoning.
A quick note on my principles: They're subject to change, as I'm an ever learning, ever growing, ever challenging person. As MadRabbit pointed out, the origins of my principles come from my experiences, experiences which I enjoyed. I'm sure a very different upbringing could have led me to believe in other principles like "You may do any act that is physically possible." (That's somewhat Randian =P).
Edit: added the boldface to help the different speakers stand out more clearly, except, of course, the boldface "generally" in paragraph 1.
|
|
|
|
