…and this is a 
Hmmm...I found the moral philosophy of chimps more convincing
Category:
Posted on: September 20, 2007 5:11 PM, by PZ Myers
My colleague in the philosophy department here at UMM, Tamler Sommers, has a couple of interesting interviews online, one with Frans de Waal and another with Jonathan Haidt. de Waal is good — there's some cool stuff in there about altruism and politics. Haidt … well, again, I find myself with mixed feelings about his work. The "social intuition" model, where people make emotional judgments and then makes intellectual rationalizations after the fact, sounds reasonable to me. But then, he goes on to make these arguments about "four pillars of morality" — harm, fairness, purity, and duty — that sound like intellectual rationalizations after the fact, too. He justifies some behaviors, such as female genital mutilation, because within a particular culture they may well be supported by a moral pillar like purity or duty, and suggests that people who lack those particular pillars (as many in the West do) cannot then criticize those behaviors.
I can almost see his point as an abstraction…but then he claims that some awful behaviors, like child slavery, cannot be justified, because they are only for personal monetary benefit. That seems arbitrary to me. What's to stop someone from declaring that "monetary benefit" is a fifth moral pillar, and thereby remove slavery from academic criticism by people who lack that particular value? It's like a game, where tagging a behavior with an emotional/moral label is sufficient to put it in a place of privilege. and whoever is in charge of defining the labels becomes the gatekeeper for what is right.
Sommers does a good job of grilling Haidt, and brings up this same issue. Haidt's answers aren't very satisfying. It amounts to saying that if the subjects of a practice, such as veiling, don't complain about it, then it's OK. It seems to ignore the fact that these individuals are imbedded in a culture that may provide some pervasive rewards and punishments to keep people in line — that these unpleasant practices have a context, and people may profess support for ugly practices not because they like them, but because they like to maintain the cultural framework that surrounds them.
I get the distinct feeling that Haidt is exhibiting an "academic intuition" model. He's got a couple of ideas that are emotionally appealing to him, and there's a fair bit of post hoc diddling to justify them … but the arguments don't ring true to anyone who lacks his attachment to them.
Comments
How can anyone begin to justify female genital mutilation and still think of themselves as moral?
Posted by: Michael | September 20, 2007 5:18 PM
You obviously lack the purity pillar.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 20, 2007 5:22 PM
What's to stop someone from declaring that "monetary benefit" is a fifth moral pillar
Not sure, but if I'm understanding him right, he's not saying that the "pillars" are declarative at all, he's saying that they're the products of subconscious agents or moral modules or however you want to put it that cue us to disparage certain behaviors (or not), for which we then must construct declarative reasons for why we feel the way we do.
So my take is, cool idea, but until you've done some empirical work to identify and delineate these putative modules, or agents, and find out how much and what kind of work they do for us, it's pretty arbitrary. There was a decent write-up of the idea in Science Times (NYT) on Tuesday, which is what I'm going on. I won't have time to read these interviews until later.
Posted by: CJO | September 20, 2007 5:27 PM
I cannot believe that someone would even try to use any kind of logic to justify or accept the incredibly evil practice of female genital mutilation (shameless plug for my blog, but the issue is really very serious). It is a cycle of repression and culturally-pressured acceptance that needs to be broken, and that is not possible till someone like Haidt keeps on providing contexts for such practices.
Posted by: suirauqa | September 20, 2007 5:28 PM
Haidt is an immoralist enabler! It is not ethnocentric to declare genital mutilation wrong: we see the baleful effects on females.
Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | September 20, 2007 5:32 PM
Purity is so often used to justify the most disgusting oppression of women by misogynistic fuck-wads. That Haidt uses it as a pillar of morality calls all his reasoning into question for me. Throw in the love of duty by authoritarians everywhere and I think an argument can be made for knocking out the last two pillars of Haidt's morality. Harm and fairness seem sufficient to me.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | September 20, 2007 5:35 PM
To see whether you are in Haidt's liberal or conservative moral camp take the test he offers at www.YourMorals.org. According to the test I am very liberal.
Posted by: Steindor J. Erlingsson | September 20, 2007 5:40 PM
So, if I staff my sweatshop with not just children, but mute children who are likewise unable to write, sign, or otherwise communicate, I'm off scott-free?
Seriously, Haidt needs a better criterion than whether or not people complain about a certain practice.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 5:41 PM
Haidt said:
I'm going to risk Godwining myself here, but let's imagine a system of brutality and apartheid based on PURITY and DUTY... would we be allowed to criticize that?
Posted by: windy | September 20, 2007 5:44 PM
Purity comes from the magical thinking arising from taking cleanliness metaphors literally, so that while dirty hands should be washed clean of filth before handling food, it makes no sense to have ritual washing of people in the open sewer of the Ganges, and even less than zero sense to have purification rituals that cast spells somewhere in the unseen realm to cleanse spiritual nonsense of uncleanliness.
You're right, PZ, he's talking shit, or words to that effect.
The pillar metaphor is when a milkstool (3 legs) or table (4 legs) don't have enough legs. Once you get to five, you'll want pillars instead of legs, but then there's no limit to the number of pillars that can follow. It helps to keep asking, 'and pillars are a metaphor for what?'. Demand that they abandon metaphors and speak plainly.
Posted by: Watt de Fawke | September 20, 2007 5:52 PM
Yes thank goodness i do live in the west, because those moral pillars make me want to vomit. I'm literally gagging on the pillars. And i'm definitely not swallowing.
Basically cultures dominated by misogynistic men hide behind that "purity" pillar because it makes them feel powerful. There is nothing moral about it.
Its all about rationalizing their misogyny.
Posted by: qedpro | September 20, 2007 5:57 PM
Anyone read "Chimpanzee Politics"? It's wonderful, so if you haven't, pick it up!
Posted by: LM | September 20, 2007 6:01 PM
I think there is something to Haidt's pillar concept: I particularly agree with his stance that our moral positions shift depending on the population density of where we live and communication options available (i.e. rural vs urban morals)
That said, he presents his pillar theory as a lot more solid than it actually is.
Posted by: colin | September 20, 2007 6:07 PM
What happens if I declare there's a single pillar -- long-term self-interest?
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 20, 2007 6:11 PM
I tune out at the first mention of the word "purity". Total BS concept.
"I'm literally gagging on the pillars. "
Can you literally gag on metaphorical objects?
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 20, 2007 6:26 PM
ah, and thus we start our double standard (which I know that you PERSONALLY don't hold, PZ) because everyone in the west KNOWS that female genital mutilation is horrific and MALE genital mutilation is the good, wholesome, normal and healthy thing to do.
Is there a POSSIBILITY that right and wrong are NOT social constructs (or should not be social constructs) that relativism AND god-given morality are both a load of crap, and that we have to start thinking about what's good for us as a species instead of defining ourselves by all these artificial abstractions?
Posted by: dorid | September 20, 2007 6:27 PM
dorid, circumcision is not even ion the same league as female genital mutilation and does not even come close in the damage it causes. Oh and no I do not support the practice of infant circumcision.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | September 20, 2007 6:33 PM
"What happens if I declare there's a single pillar -- long-term self-interest?"
Then you're what moral philosphers call an ethical egoist.
Posted by: bob koepp | September 20, 2007 6:35 PM
But then, he goes on to make these arguments about "four pillars of morality" -- harm, fairness, purity, and duty -- that sound like intellectual rationalizations after the fact, too.
well, at least you can say he's consistent. obviously he considers himself a data point supporting his own hypothesis.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 20, 2007 6:42 PM
Please, please don't let this digress into a circumcision argument...
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 20, 2007 6:44 PM
I think Haidt is conflating the evolved moral modules with the cultural "paramter settings" of those modules that occur as a person grows up. So his pillars are not really fundamental at all; it's as if he said a pillar of grammar is: "a noun takes an ending to indicate two-or-more," but you'd get much more explanatory power if you make the relevant pillar: "the brain's language engine represents nouns and nouns can be marked for number." My opinion is that there are at least three (and not many more) moral modules, which are something like: 1. Punish those of us who cheat. 2. Don't hurt those of us who don't cheat. 3. Obey the king. Obviously, what constitutes "us" "cheating" "hurt" and "king" are parameter settings. Also, those three modules have no particular heierarchy; they compete with each other in producing moral judgments. But those modules explain an awful lot that's otherwise puzzling about people's moral feelings (once you plug in the locally relevant parameters); and given my particular parameter settings, they certainly lead to the feeling that FGM is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Sam Nesvoy | September 20, 2007 6:46 PM
and that we have to start thinking about what's good for us as a species instead of defining ourselves by all these artificial abstractions?
bloody group selectionist!
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 20, 2007 6:47 PM
Ha. This is classic cultural relativist tripe. The only moral "pillar" that can remotely be justified is harm. Fairness has been used to justify communism. Purity and duty are pillars of fascism, religious and otherwise. This guy is so dumb it's dangerous.
Posted by: BlackSun | September 20, 2007 7:01 PM
According to the YourMorals.org test, I am a raging psychopath... But before I could rejoice in that fact, this proviso caught my eyes
Yeah, way to go to mar someone's little enjoyments...Posted by: Kausik Datta | September 20, 2007 7:10 PM
Fuck you, ma'am.
In the societies where female genital mutilation is practiced, they use the same excuses to justify the practice as we do here to justify male genital mutilation.
Certainly it's not equivalent. It can't be equivalent, because men and women are wired differently sexually, and as a result it's far easier to cripple female sexuality than male. Very few women can have orgasms without major genital stimulation, while most men can be brought to orgasm by visual stimuli alone - or even just thought, which only a tiny percentage of women can manage.
That does NOT make male genital mutilation less abhorrent or less shameful than female. Just how damaging does a pointless cultural practice have to be before you'll condemn it? Or is the real problem that it's performed on males, which you don't have an interest in defending because it's outside the narrow bounds of your cause?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 20, 2007 7:32 PM
In the West, outside the USA, only Jews and Muslims think of male circumcision as "normal". Or rather, only they are circumcised.
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 20, 2007 7:36 PM
Isn't male circumcision based on the "purity pillar" too? That's a further complication to his argument (although, as David pointed out, you Americans seem to have an extra thick purity pillar when viewed from elsewhere in the West)
Posted by: windy | September 20, 2007 7:43 PM
If he thinks genital mutilation falls fine under the purity and duty roles... then so must stoning women for showing their wrists, or honor killings for women who have been raped. He must surely have no problem with that (not having read the paper, apologies). Seems to me that if we make these things outside the bounds of discussion, then it doesn't matter what religion and what form of hatred it is, we have to say hands off. And does it matter that these things directly contradict our moral pillars of harm and even fairness?
Posted by: ssjessiechan | September 20, 2007 8:18 PM
Funny, isn't it, how conservatives only trot out this horse excrement when we have a Republican President (or a SCOTUS about to install a Republican President).
"What about the harm to our social order" pearl-clutching sure took a nice long hibernation while they were lynching the President over a blowjob. I predict it will fade away again (like the "budget deficits are harmless" claim) on the very day Chimpy is finally dethroned.
Posted by: melior | September 20, 2007 8:29 PM
Ditto @ David (#26)
Truly male circumcision is NOT seen as a good practice outside the US. The idea of unnecessary surgery based on superstition and tradition is really alien to me. And it's not like parents are allowed to have their children operated for any other reason without a medical condition?
Posted by: Pekka Pekuri | September 20, 2007 8:29 PM
So, stripping the sexuality from a person and causing them pain and suffering throughout their life is equivalent to a largely cosmetic change, because? Yes, it is less abhorrent because it causes less harm, just like repeatedly punching a person is less abhorrent than setting them on fire.
Dismissing a horrible maiming on grounds of what sounds suspiciously like blaming women for their 'inferior' sexuality and biology, and making unsubstantiated claims does not garner respect for you or your ideas.
Posted by: Kerlyssa | September 20, 2007 8:41 PM
In my onion the conservative purity and hierarchy pillars are fake. They are based on manipulating others for your own ends. In the case of hierarchy it is maintain your own position vis-à-vis others, unless you are at the bottom, in which case you do not have it. But it probably is based on the behavior of our ancestor primates. The purity one is all about control and subjugation of women. The purity meme is a rationalization for keeping women under (it rarely applies to men). As for that despicable idea of "honor killing" there is no justification for it.
Also culture and lives are not static - you learn as you go along. And yes the Yuk factor is a significant but subject to learning. I remember Dean when he put through the civil union legislation in Vermont said he was quite uncomfortable with the concept though intellectually he thought as civil rights it was right. A few years later when he was standing for president he was quite comfortable with the gay unions issue. He was asked "why?" "Because I have learnt a lot since then".
Moral behavior like any other is subject to learning and being rewarded or punished for certain kinds of behavior.
Posted by: sailor | September 20, 2007 9:08 PM
I can't believe that people on here actually think that male circumcision and female genital mutilation are on par with one another. What is WRONG with you? Look, when you have your foreskin removed, at least your penis STILL FUNCTIONS (and guess what? There are a lot of good reasons for getting it removed). What about these females that have their entire clitoris removed? Yeah, and I can totally see how circumcision is *exactly* like having ones labia permanently fused together.
*rolling of eyes*
Posted by: anon | September 20, 2007 9:08 PM
Please, please don't let this digress into a circumcision argument...
well, at least you tried, Rey.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 20, 2007 9:22 PM
I had the chance to attend a Frans de Waal lecture a couple of years ago, he is an excellent speaker! I don't fully agree with him on all of his views, although I think he has many insightful ideas, but he is a very entertaining lecturer. Even if you completely disagree with his main ideas, his analysis of Bush's body language in comparison to other primates was definitely a gem. ;)
Posted by: Anne-Marie | September 20, 2007 10:37 PM
Could you point out the post number and sentence(s) where that argument has been made in this thread? Could you do it even once?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 20, 2007 11:10 PM
To clarify:
Male circumcision is EXACTLY THE SAME as what's referred to as "type I female circumcision." All the other kinds of female circumcision are WAY worse.
Posted by: Eric | September 20, 2007 11:41 PM
Except that reproductive function isn't the issue. And no, there are no good reasons for circumcision. The past claims have all been debunked.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 20, 2007 11:46 PM
"Please, please don't let this digress into a circumcision argument..."
That would be one involving particularly cutting remarks?
Honestly, where do these people come from? Y'know, the 'you must talk about male circumcision if you're going to mention FGM!!! It's so horrible!!' crowd . . . or the 9/11 troofers, or any of those folks who jut get triggered and go off on these highly stereotypical and weirdly coy.manipulative rants? It's very strange.
" most men can be brought to orgasm by visual stimuli alone"
Er . . .really?
_____
Just to reprise my comments from the Mary Midgely brain-rot thread - to some degree, I thought, Haidt's 'four pillars' were based on anthropological and psychological data; that is, in a strictly descriptive sense, they're the things that have come up again and again in terms of how people think/have thought of what we'd call 'morality' - that seems quite reasonable, and why 'monetary gain,' for example, doesn't really make the cut. When he gets into the political or cultural comparisons, though - ie, how liberals only care about two of the four pillars, and are kinda morally impoverished - I think he's missing the mark somewhat. My guess is that there's a lot less difference between liberals/conservatives or the West/the Rest at that level; rather, some of us decadent individualistic Westerners (rootless cosmopolitans?) just conceptualize them differently enough that his questions and such miss them, an error of phrasing/fr*ming.
For example, take purity/sanctity. The 'conservative' version is often driven by group concerns - in-group loyalty & hierarchy (esp. gender hierarchy). The 'liberal' - most noticeably, but not only, culturally lefty - version . . . well, visualize (except for Caledonian, if that's alright - albeit possibly mis-specified) some nice young woman, adorned with no-animal-testing cosmetics, hiking to some place of pristine & specially protected natural beauty in non-sweatshop clothes, where she stops to eat a sandwich with organically grown vegetables on whole-grain bread (and if animals were involved, it would be, say, dolphin-safe tuna, perhaps). A bit overdrawn, maybe, and only one type, but this is sanctity/purity up the wazoo, and it doesn't simply reduce to that first pillar (of (non)harm), any more than conservative ones reduce to the fourth. It also connects to (one) of the liberal versions of that fourth pillar - duty - which is similarly reconceptualized,, often in a way that my little picture just now points to - our intuitions about hierarchy, respect, and duty are very there, but very different: they're horizontal, perhaps, not vertical, a spreading ring of ripples rather than a chain ascending upwards (or descending downwards) . . . After all, as Haidt argues, these systems are internally coherent. But this also suggests that we can, even by those standards, critique other, 4-pillar groups; indeed, I take his work to raise some fascinating issues about how we would best talk about/critique other systems.
From the interview:
" JH: Well, OK, let's see. Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful--what makes that true? Um, her... shape, I suppose."
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 12:02 AM
Some fascinating but very peculiar research has been done in the field of human sexuality.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 12:10 AM
"That does NOT make male genital mutilation less abhorrent or less shameful than female."
Imagine you were reading about a culture where, soon after birth, boy babies had one of their little fingers amputated. That's kinda messed up, you might think. Eww.
Now imagine you were reading about a culture where, around puberty, girls had one of their arms amputated.
Is one more/less abhorrent, more/less shameful than the other?
Or perhaps the first culture, soon after birth, operates on the eyes of the boys babies, so that they're permanently somewhat nearsighted.
And the second, around puberty, takes the girls and gouges their eyes out.
Is one more/less abhorrent, more/less shameful than the other?
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 12:24 AM
"Strange, but true. Also, just thinking - it takes some work, but it can be done
Huh. The things ones learns here on scienceblogs.
"Some fascinating but very peculiar research has been done in the field of human sexuality.
That is certainly true. Although arguably not quite as peculiar as that done in the field of nonhuman sexuality . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 12:27 AM
I prefer Freud. And Nietzsche. They says everything that needs to be said about morality and politics. I could be wrong though *backs away slowly*.
Posted by: Julian | September 21, 2007 12:44 AM
"Look, when you have your clitoris removed, at least your vagina STILL FUNCTIONS."
Although, if one were to look at analogous structures between genetalia, the clitoris is analagous to the penis. So, in circumcision, the penis STILL WORKS. In FGM the clitoris is GONE.
The vast majority of females cannot orgasm after FGM. A) if the vast majority of men couldn't orgasm after circumcision, do you think it would still be a popular practice? Why? B) If the vast majority of men did not experience orgasm after circumcision, but were still unfeelingly able to deposit sperm in a woman, would you sanction it as being ok, because he could still reproduce? Why?
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 21, 2007 12:49 AM
Clarification: I am against both circumcision and FGM. However, what people like Caledonian fail to appreciate is that there are VASTLY different contexts for the two procedures. One is an antiquated ritual which remains popular as a side-effect of strong judeo-christian background. The other is a deliberate attempt to control and remove all female sexuality. Different contexts, different routes needed to stop them, and different levels of outrage apply. And when FGM comes up, it's highly annoying to the rest of us when someone comes in whining "Dear GOD, what about the POOR BOYZ!!!1!11!"
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 21, 2007 12:56 AM
Caledonian, you might have tried reading my whole post it was short. I did and do condemn involuntary circumcision. It just I got so tired of the 'But what about the mens' whine every time some vile misogynist practice is brought up.
Oh and by the by I am a trans-women so circumcision is not outside the 'narrow' bonds of any cause of mine.
Rey, I am sorry and promise this will be my last post on this.
Up the All Blacks! (obligatory Rugby reference)
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | September 21, 2007 1:12 AM
'his analysis of Bush's body language in comparison to other primates was definitely a gem.'
Oh please tell me there is a video of this somewhere. Anne-Marie I am SO jealous, it sound hilarious.
Posted by: Natasha Yar-Routh | September 21, 2007 1:22 AM
I think there are some inconsistencies in Mr. Haidt's claims. For one thing, he says that our tendency to give justifications for moral views is to persuade people that we're right---which seems to imply that we all instinctually believe that at least some of the time we can persuade and be persuaded of moral claims by rational argumentation---which I think is born out by the historical experience of the shift of public opinion on things like slavery, race, gender, etc.
His comparison of aesthetic and moral values also rings false, because your opinion on whether a value is an aesthetic value or a moral value can be the same question as whether it is something that applies to others or not. I think that heterosexuality and homosexuality is an aesthetic question---different people are attracted to different things, but clearly many people believe that it is a moral question.
Lastly, the question of whether we can critique other's morality from the perspective of our own is itself a moral question. There is nothing, in principle, stopping me from saying that "my morality is subjective, but it's still better than yours". By even his own standard, such relativism is not a moral truth, since the vast majority of people seem to consider other moral systems subject to critique.
Posted by: Matthew L. | September 21, 2007 1:30 AM
Well, it may be the case that people don't generally invoke personal monetary benefit as a moral pillar, and don't show a strong moral reaction to most monetary gains or losses. I'd like to believe that Haidt has some consistent way of identifying these foundational principles, a way which is robust against people randomly making up additional ones. (But I haven't read his papers, so I can't say for sure.)
That said, I suspect that he hasn't actually checked whether people justify Bad Things by reference to his existing list o' pillars. Child slavery could be justified by Fairness, since the employer deserves his monetary benefit, given the taxes and personal expenditures he's forced to pay by a cruel world; or by Purity, because it keeps the kids from going on the streets and lazing around and shooting up and making out with each other; or; or by Duty, since the labors of the children are strengthening the economy and producing valuable goods for the fatherland. Haidt probably wouldn't accept any of those rationalizations, but judging by the interview, he doesn't have any way to show that they're wrong.
As a moral skeptic, I don't have a problem with that. But Haidt apparently isn't a moral skeptic--he wants to have a descriptive theory of morality, and then layer a normative theory on top of it to explain why some people have a better morality than others. It's not surprising that he ends up tripping over himself.
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 21, 2007 2:09 AM
kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)? If not, would you support a law making neonatal male circumcision illegal and be called an anti-Semite in the process?
Rather than playing down the circumcision discussion in this thread I feel like it strengthens Jonathan Haidt's point. What we view as morally justified is intimately linked to what is considered culturally normal.
The most disturbing thing about Jonathan Haidt's work is that he's probably be right.
Posted by: telomerex | September 21, 2007 2:10 AM
To continue to complain about Haidt's non-criticism position, he talks about gay marriage, and how attitudes today are such that many of us find it ok, while 100 years ago we would not have. But this is not some sort of magic, unexplainable change, it's a direct result of agitation for gay rights, of activists publicly attacking the view that homosexuality is wrong with rational arguments, showing people what homosexuals are like on a personal level, etc.
Invoking an evolutionary argument for particular moral beliefs leaves him unable to explain how the moral consensus in a place can change, or how a range of moral beliefs can exist at one time.
Posted by: Matthew L. | September 21, 2007 2:29 AM
This overlaps somewhat with a post by Dan S. on another thread, but I'm surprised that Haidt finds "purity/sanctity/cleanliness" to play such a small role in liberal thinking. Seems to me that it's one of the most important foundational principles in environmentalism; many people think we should protect the environment not because we get good things from it but because it's an inherently beautiful and sacred thing which should not be despoiled. Think of all the rhetoric about "pristine, virgin forests" and, for that matter, "tainting" our food with GMOs and radiation.
(By "rhetoric" I don't mean to imply that such language is appropriate or inappropriate--just that, in my experience, that's how environmental issues are commonly championed.)
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 21, 2007 2:49 AM
Anton:
Exactly. Some people have suggested that in Scandinavian countries, "morality" is now more often directed at environmental choices (recycling, buying hybrid cars and Fair Trade products, not smoking) than the traditional nudity, sex, alcohol use etcetera. Can be a pain if and when people don't question their assumptions, but otherwise, why the hell not put those moral feelings to good use for once.
Posted by: windy | September 21, 2007 5:27 AM
"Can you literally gag on metaphorical objects?"
Yes, you can. The 'literally' refers to the gagging, not to the concepts that generate it. If a disgusting idea leads you to actually have a physical gag reflex, then you are literally, physically, gagging at the idea. I'm sure you can think of instances where an idea, such as a description of an act, has caused people to physically gag, or even vomit.
Posted by: Ruth | September 21, 2007 6:02 AM
telemerex: You are changing the working definition of circumcision(type 1 is vanishingly rare) and assuming responses on part of other people based on these new definitions that they have already specifically denounced. That is, kellebelle has already said male circumcision is unwarranted so the directly analagous type of female circumcision would be unwarranted for the same reasons.
You are ignoring the repeated explanations of the amount of harm FGM does compared to male circumcision in favor of calling it a purely cultural preference, like spices in food or kissing on the cheek rather than hugging. If your support of Haidt's work is based of similiar reasoning, it's more a mark against than for it.
Caledonian: Removing the penis does not remove the ability to reproduce sperm. To paraphrase someone else, if a man's penis was cut off with scissors as a toddler and his testes cut and fused together, and after marriage he was cut open and harvested from for the purposes of reproduction, there would be a more analogous situation. Argue against male circumcision on its own merits, not by flaunting your own ignorant and callous disregard for a different practice.
Posted by: Kerlyssa | September 21, 2007 8:16 AM
Yeah, all those poor circumcised women with their ovaries fused together...
No, wait. That makes absolutely no sense.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 8:23 AM
1) Context? Who cares about the context?
2a) Female mutilation is a long-standing tradition in various other societies. The difference is that those societies haven't been ones you've grown up in.
2b) Male circumcision doesn't actually have a very long history in the societies that directly lead to the US. It was a Victorian perversion intended to prevent masturbation.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 8:28 AM
Anyhoo, to get this discussion back on track AND tie in my previous posts to the theme:
I think there are additional 'pillars', one of which is the idea that one's own group should be defended whether right or wrong. This concept doesn't seem to fit in any of the previous pillars discussed, and tribalistic thinking is clearly a factor in most people's moral decisionmaking.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 8:34 AM
"Yeah, all those poor circumcised women with their ovaries fused together...
No, wait. That makes absolutely no sense"
Caledonian, do you simply not understand what Kerlyssa's talking about, or are you merely mocking the less-than-perfect choice of anatomical analogies (and consequently dodging their point)?
Anton - and I go on about that some more up in #39 - but yeah, it's really odd that he misses this. I haven't read any of the actual research, so there may be a good reason for it, but I dunno . . .
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 8:44 AM
That's "loyalty" and, as I mentioned before, it's a vice - and a pernicious(!) one at that, because of the way it is traditionally misadvertised as being a virtue.
Posted by: SEF | September 21, 2007 8:46 AM
"I think there are additional 'pillars', one of which is the idea that one's own group should be defended whether right or wrong."
He may be subsuming this under 'duty' - certainly in the recent Science Times article and some other places he talks about five principles or systems, one of which is in-group loyalty. (also respect for authority/hierarchy, and then the other three as discussed here).
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 8:51 AM
Proposal for a new purity ensuring operation : caledonostomy.
cut caledontrol's penis, prostata and anything between out, and make sperm duct stomas in the scrotum, so he can still reproduce by collecting the sperm in a pouch and injecting it in the womb by a syringe.
Posted by: T_U_T | September 21, 2007 9:03 AM
Their point is incoherent. If they possess a coherent point, they have not expressed it and don't look likely to express it.
Except that 'duty' can include a variety of contradictory principles depending on the culture, but in-group loyalty seems to be universal. If he is so subsuming, I think it's a mistake.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 9:32 AM
"Their point is incoherent. If they possess a coherent point, they have not expressed it and don't look likely to express it.
Come on now, their point is perfectly coherent (unless you literally don't know what they're talking about/referring to), albeit with some, again, less-than-perfect analogizing. (although since the scrotum is apparently homologous to the labia majora - I'm trusting wikipedia here, which may be a horrible mistake - they're not that far off.) If you insist, an analogy would be an operation involving cutting off much of the penis (and possibly some surrounding areas as well), with the resulting stump covered over by sown-together scrotal tissue (with a little hole for urine), to be torn or cut open to allow intercourse. This of course would be analogous to type III/infibulation - type II/excision would probably be more analogous to just chopping off a fair bit of the penis.
Posted by: Dan S. | September 21, 2007 10:01 AM
Because of the different distribution of sensory nerves, it's not really possible to make simple comparison between male and female anatomy. I suspect your analogy is closest to the truth.
But you're focusing on the argument, and not the point (or the lack thereof).
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 10:11 AM
"You are changing the working definition of circumcision(type 1 is vanishingly rare) and assuming responses on part of other people based on these new definitions that they have already specifically denounced."
That is a lie! The only time I even used that word in my question is when I ask about "neonatal male circumcision". I can only guess that when you wrote "circumcision" you really meant FGM which would be rather amusing given your objections. Your point about the rarity of the practice is a red herring and has absolutely nothing do with the questions I asked.
"That is, kellebelle has already said male circumcision is unwarranted so the directly analagous type of female circumcision would be unwarranted for the same reasons."
I didn't ask about the practice being "unwarranted" or not. I asked whether it should be made illegal as the female analogue is.
"You are ignoring the repeated explanations of the amount of harm FGM does compared to male circumcision in favor of calling it a purely cultural preference, like spices in food or kissing on the cheek rather than hugging."
Funny, as what I used in the comparison is what you call the "directly analagous type of female circumcision".
Posted by: telomerex | September 21, 2007 10:19 AM
I like Tamler's philosophical work a lot. He's a rare breed -- a freewill skeptic. Which means he must be unusually brilliant. (Take it from me; I'm a freewill skeptic too.)
Posted by: Drake | September 21, 2007 11:24 AM
Kerlyssa:
No, it's not. C&Ping a post from an earlier thread:
--
Types I and IV are actually often milder than male circumcision--for instance, in Indonesia nearly all baby girls get a symbolic pinprick of the clitoris or removal of a small part of the hood. Still pointless suffering for the girl, of course, and still a health risk in areas with poor-to-nonexistent medical hygiene.
Even in Africa, most of the countries UNICEF surveyed do Type I circumcision more often than any other type. The only countries where full removal of the clitoris or worse mutilations are the most popular were Burkina Faso, Sudan and Eritrea.
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 21, 2007 1:51 PM
Dan S.,
Whoops, missed that one. Sorry!
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 21, 2007 2:02 PM
"kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)?"
Well, FGM 1 is defined as "excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or the entire clitoris." (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm and pretty much anywhere else you look it up). You can't just cherry-pick the part of the definition you like in order to set up a false comparison. So, to answer your question, no, I would not support making type 1 FGM legal, as it allows for clitoridectomy.
And no, growing up in a different culture is NOT the only difference between male circumcision and FGM. I'm sure I'm not going to be able to change your mind, but I'll say this again for the hell of it: most circumcised men have fully functioning, pain-free sex lives. Most FGM recipients not only do not enjoy sex, but can have vast amounts of pain during sex, menstruation, and urination, and have a higher liklihood of complications (including infant death) during childbirth (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/lancetfgm.pdf).
Also, the point of the questions in my first post is to illustrate that male sexuality is vastly privileged over female sexuality, which is underscored by your posts. Male circumcision is pointless and shouldn't be done unnecessarily, but comparing it to FGM is just stupid. By doing so, you're equating a tiny bit of foreskin and perhaps a minor loss in sensitivity to the loss of a womans entire ability to enjoy sex (not to mention the additional pain. But, who cares, they're just women, right?). Now, we can agree that unnecessary genital surgery is a bad thing, but in practice, circumcision and FGM are two different phenomena that need to be addressed in different ways. And, inevitably, whenever a discussion about FGM comes up, there's always someone who says "FGM? But... But... what about MY FORESKIN GOD DAMN IT! Why aren't you talking about how to stop the HORRORS of CIRCUMCISION?!"
Those of us who discuss FGM and it's ramifications are sick of you. And since I've stated my case as clearly as I can, and lack faith that I have influenced you in the slightest, I'll merely shut up and refer you to the following thread, which discusses this issue in far greater depth: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/06/28/some-good-news/
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 21, 2007 2:14 PM
"kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)?"
Well, FGM 1 is defined as "excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or the entire clitoris." (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm and pretty much anywhere else you look it up). You can't just cherry-pick the part of the definition you like in order to set up a false comparison. So, to answer your question, no, I would not support making type 1 FGM legal, as it allows for clitoridectomy.
And no, growing up in a different culture is NOT the only difference between male circumcision and FGM. I'm sure I'm not going to be able to change your mind, but I'll say this again for the hell of it: most circumcised men have fully functioning, pain-free sex lives. Most FGM recipients not only do not enjoy sex, but can have vast amounts of pain during sex, menstruation, and urination, and have a higher liklihood of complications (including infant death) during childbirth (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/lancetfgm.pdf).
Also, the point of the questions in my first post is to illustrate that male sexuality is vastly privileged over female sexuality, which is underscored by your posts. Male circumcision is pointless and shouldn't be done unnecessarily, but comparing it to FGM is just stupid. By doing so, you're equating a tiny bit of foreskin and perhaps a minor loss in sensitivity to the loss of a womans entire ability to enjoy sex (not to mention the additional pain. But, who cares, they're just women, right?). Now, we can agree that unnecessary genital surgery is a bad thing, but in practice, circumcision and FGM are two different phenomena that need to be addressed in different ways. And, inevitably, whenever a discussion about FGM comes up, there's always someone who says "FGM? But... But... what about MY FORESKIN GOD DAMN IT! Why aren't you talking about how to stop the HORRORS of CIRCUMCISION?!"
Those of us who discuss FGM and it's ramifications are sick of you. And since I've stated my case as clearly as I can, and lack faith that I have influenced you in the slightest, I'll merely shut up and refer you to the following thread, which discusses this issue in far greater depth: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/06/28/some-good-news/
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 21, 2007 2:17 PM
The point, Dan S., isn't that because men and women are wired differently, there's no way to compare the effects of damage to genitalia between the two sexes.
The point is that no one has suggested that male and female circumcision are physically equivalent. What is the same is the lack of rational examination, the rationalizations, the references to supposed medical benefits that have actually been shown to be false, the association with specific religious and cultural identities that any attack on the practice is called an attack on - these are the ways in which they are similar, and in many cases identical.
If we're going to attack the shoddy reasoning used to support the practice of female circumcision, we must first acknowledge that we've been using the same reasoning ourselves to support our own dubious cultural practices - then we have to stop.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 21, 2007 2:32 PM
I tried posting this earlier, but it didn't take. Trying again, w/o all the links:
"kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)?"
Defined correctly, FGM 1 is "excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or the entire clitoris." (WHO website). So, no, I would not support making type 1 FGM legal.
And growing up in a different culture is NOT the only difference between IMC and FGM. Again: most circumcised men have fully functioning, pain-free sex lives. Most FGM recipients not only do not enjoy sex, but can have vast amounts of pain during sex, menstruation, and urination, and have a higher likelihood of complications (including infant death) during childbirth (WHO website).
Also, the point of the questions in my first post is to illustrate that male sexuality is vastly privileged over female sexuality, which is underscored by your posts. Male circumcision is pointless and shouldn't be done unnecessarily, but comparing it to FGM is stupid. By doing so, you're equating (morally, if not procedurally) a tiny bit of foreskin and perhaps a minor loss in sensitivity to the loss of a woman's entire ability to enjoy sex. Now, we can agree that unnecessary genital surgery is generally bad, but in practice, circumcision and FGM are separate phenomena that need to be addressed in different ways; i.e. FGM is used to control female sexuality, whereas IMC is no longer practiced as a method to control male sexuality. And, inevitably, whenever a discussion about FGM comes up, there's always someone who says "FGM? But... But... what about MY FORESKIN GOD DAMN IT! Why aren't you talking about how to stop the HORRORS of CIRCUMCISION?!"
Those of us who discuss FGM and its ramifications are sick of you. We see no reason why we should stop IMC (which is already declining) before we can even address FGM, and most of us already see no reason for IMC anyway. Search for FGM on Pandagon, for instance, and the results give quite an in depth discussion of this.
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 21, 2007 3:04 PM
Circumcision involves the loss of between a fourth to a third of the skin on the penis, and depending on how it is performed, it removes either most or all of the musocal membrane that constitutes the inner surface.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.