A major question concerning philosophers for centuries is “what makes morality moral?” With numerous theories and countless opinions, it’s difficult to come to a true conclusion. However, it may be possible to narrow down the ideas by determining how they fit in to the world around us. In the article “The Cutting Tradition,” author Sara Corbett presents the controversial practice of female circumcision. While there are strong opinions on both sides of the spectrum, which perception is right? By analyzing the “The Cutting Tradition” through philosophical theories, we may better understand what makes morality moral.
One prevalent theory and seemingly the most fitting in this case, is cultural relativism. Professor James Rachels explains that it is the culture that defines morality (Cahn 651). Although he himself is not a believer in cultural relativism, he first makes a strong argument as to why it is a plausible theory. This idea would seem to explain how female genital mutilation is still a common practice in many countries, as it is viewed as a positive thing in those areas. Medical Officer Laura Guarenti states that the mothers of these girls believe they are doing a good thing for their daughters when they have them circumcised and, “for our culture that is not easily understandable (Corbett).” We, as cultural relativists, cannot deny the practice as wrong, merely as a difference in culture.
That is exactly where cultural relativism fails. As James Rachels further explains, through cultural relativism we can no longer judge horrendous practices in other countries, only acknowledge that they are quiet different from our own. Furthermore, it holds the practices in our own culture as morally right. This denies any sort of moral progress (Cahn 651). Things may change in a society, but they are neither good nor bad. For example, in early 19th century America, we could not call slavery wrong. While we know it is a terrible act now, in that time period, it was culturally and thus ethically right. Right now, it is considered “right” to mutilate the female body, because it is a tradition in many places. This false logic merely steers away from the original purpose of female circumcision: domination and power.
Another theory of morality stems from the “might makes right” mentality, or ethical nihilism. In Beyond Good and Evil, Fredrich Nietzsche sums it up by saying, “life simply is the will to power.” Any possible action we have is for our own selfish betterment (Cahn 352). Everything comes down to exploitation for personal gain. Through this mentality, it is the powerful that make the rules and moral standards and the weak who must follow. Only when people are equals does the question of ethics even matter.
While this may be a highly cynical and depressing theory, Nietzsche does have a point. The underlying purpose of female genital mutilation is male domination. Men strive for power by controlling women’s sexuality. The tradition is only permeated by religious leaders passing this form of oppression off as religious duty. Corbett notes that it is through the religious leaders that change can occur, thus emphasizing Nietzsche’s point that whoever has the power makes the moral status quo.
However, it may be hard to change the opinion of the religious authority who follow the Divine Command theory. The pious believe that because something is holy, it is a moral obligation to uphold that sentiment. “The Cutting Tradition” illustrates the ritualistic tone of female circumcision, as a religious right of passage (Corbett). Not only is it hard to change cultural traditions, but it’s even more difficult when that tradition is based on religious context.
Using Socratic irony in Euthyphro, Plato presents the “Euthyphro Paradox” that emerges from Divine Command (Cahn 5). Euthyphro is a highly religious man who is stepping out of a courtroom, having just prosecuted his father for murder by negligence. Socrates is approaching the courtroom for his own trial, when he begins a discussion with the pious Euthyphro. Socrates asks how he knew it was right to condemn his father. Euthyphro answers that it is the gods who decide what is right, and he was serving the gods by prosecuting his father. Socrates continues by asking, is it right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it’s right? Euthyphro, no longer so confident in his religious expertise, bids farewell to Socrates, and the Euthyphro Paradox is still unanswered. So, is genital mutilation right because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is right?
Regardless of the Euthyphro conundrum, or of the powerful asserting their power, or the culturally relevant morals, I know with every fiber of my being that female circumcision is just plain wrong. Logic cannot sweet talk its way into convincing people why terrible things seem right or seem wrong. Philosopher David Hume perfectly asserts his perception of morality in Enquiry into Morals (Cahn 224). Hume understands that morality comes down to a feeling that cannot be explained by logic. With every logical answer, another “why” can follow. Eventually, one just has to feel that something is moral. These feelings all stem from a universal sympathy that drives amiable characteristics such as honesty and kindness. We don’t help people purely to make ourselves feel better, as Nietzsche would attest; we do it because of sympathy. Sympathy is a universal human trait. Hume admits that some have stronger feelings of sympathy, or that it may reach as far as our culture teaches us, but it is the underlying reason driving morality. As Dr. Myers explained, eyesight is a universal human quality, though some people are blind.
Obviously, I am a fan of Hume’s concept of sympathy. Female circumcision will always seem wrong to me and the right thing for others. However, this is an issue that will remain a source of controversy for years to come. Centuries of philosophers have debated the ever elusive question, “What makes morality moral?” Yet for all the theories and personal opinions, the ultimate answer is, we just don’t know.
Works Cited
Cahn, Steven M., and Peter Markie. Ethics; History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford, 2006.
Corbett, Sara. “The Cutting Tradition.” New York Times 20 Jan. 2008
Leave a Reply