Once Upon a Time in Philosophy Class Part One

After a number of years, I decided to go back and get my BA.  Since I was working a full time job during the day, I took night classes, and one of the available ones was Philosophy 110 Morals and Ethics.  For content, it was a pretty basic introduction to the broad forms of logical thought with key sections featuring big names like Socrates, Plato, Rousseau, and ... the no name associate professor recently furnished with a Ph.D. and an inflated view of self.  Let's say that we didn't get along very well.  I barely passed the class, because I decided to challenge her abortion arguments by sidestepping the premise entirely.  That is a story for a different day though, because I did very well on exactly one paper about the moral underpinnings of female genital mutilation and circumcision which is problematic.

We can quibble about the physical changes to genitalia having differences, but they both involve a ceremonial removal or modification of a person's body part with a variety of long term side effects.  I used the word ceremonial very broadly to mean an action taken based on a firmly held belief.  Belief, for me, is not inherently religious.  Belief simply requires decision making based on faith or the absence of facts.  In action, circumcision in Western society can be conducted based on parental authority based on a belief they have about aesthetics or cleanliness or religion, and I packaged that as ceremonial.  Compared to FGM, I'd struggle to find members of Western society that would justify the action for any reason, because we find it horrifying.  

The gist of my original argument was that FGM and circumcision are ethically identical.  Since it was mainly circumcision that presented the barrier, I spent most of my time on that.  Both of these procedures are very often not medically necessary, and I took issue with invading a person's bodily autonomy without consent.  I made a concession for situations where the absence of action would cause injury.  Foreskin, for example, can be problematically tight and prevent proper blood flow and gland function.  Not teaching your son how to clean properly though?  Really...  Anyway, my concluding remarks were to the effect of allowing people to make their own choices for ceremonial removal or modification of a body part once they reach the age of majority.  

Let's pretend you're a young adult male in Europe, Canada, or the USA, and you're able to vote, buy alcohol, and do all the fun adult things like pay income taxes and work until you die.  If you believe you penis looks better without foreskin, go for it.  If you believe you'll have an easier time keeping clean without foreskin, go ahead and save yourself some time in the shower.  If your religious beliefs preclude the necessity of foreskin, that's fine.  Basically, I don't care what you decide to do with your body as long as you're deciding to do it.

This morning, I managed to completely dissect my own logic.  I'm taking issue with this idea of the medically necessary, because things that are medically necessary are also culturally mediated and are inconsistent across time and space.  I think that the questions I had at the time are able to transcend my initial thoughts, because we're really talking about whether there is a morally correct way to govern the bodies of people.  It was at this point that I hit a wall and starting cussing at myself, because I needed to revisit Foucault.

At a glance, this has very little to do with the Black Lives Matter protests against violent policing practices and decades of systemic racism being swept under the proverbial rug.  I have an odd way of thinking though...  So, I'll let you be the judge as of my next post.

-Megs