"If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, leaving only a tiny little hole for urine and menstrual flow, the only question would be how severely that person should be punished, and whether the death penalty would be a sufficiently severe sanction. But when millions of people do this, instead of the enormity being magnified millions-fold, suddenly it becomes 'culture,' and thereby magically becomes, rather than more, horrible, and is even defended by some Western 'moral thinkers,' including feminists." - Donald Symons.
I see this problem often, from stupid ideas about politics or the nature of reality, for irrational, irresponsible, purely impulsive and emotion-based methods of thinking, etc. My own psychiatrist, with whom I seek council and therapeutic aid for aspects of ASC, informs me that because my brain is 'wired' so differently to over 90% of the worlds population, I must begin to accept that it is me that is wrong on such issues, because I am in a minority. This general attitude makes no sense. It is a ridiculous suggestion that this or that idea, irrespective of evidence or rationality or observable moral implications and consequences, is validated purely by the number of it's adherents. As for this or that action or behaviour. We could apply this to genital mutilation, flat-earthers, Brexit, whatever. One has the right to an opinion, certainly (something my shrink has claimed I do not). The Taliban has many of those. However, it would be in error to say that they have anything meaningful or worthwhile to contribute to discussions about quantum physics or neuroscience or behavioural psychology or epidemiology. The same for the Ku Klux Clan or the bloody Sith Empire. So why, on other issues, are we so inclined towards relativism and impartiality?
There are many forms of genital amendment practiced in Africa. One of my exs was a recipient of a very different type. I will not go into too much details but it involved the skin next to her clitous being lenthened. This was done as an enhancement rather than a castration. Now don
t get me wrong, I in no way condone this practice but I did enjoy the results.
Cutting to the chase: If your shrink has told you you do not have a right to your opinion, WTF are you still giving them money & time??!?!!
Personal note: I have found that the more I give myself permission to be "me", the happier I am!
To the main question...NO! Sorry, tho I think we need to see other viewpoints, certain actions are harmful on their face, no matter the culture or amount of people who adhere to that belief. Morals can be derived from rational criteria regarding the amount of harm vs well-being. I also think you need to dump your shrink for another one that can relate to you better. One that believes that only the majority equates to "mental health" is a quack & an idiot, no matter some out-dated definitions!
Bearing in mind George Orwell's 1984, I wonder to what extent, if any, the concept of political correctness has served to lend weight to ethical relativism?
The 'minority of one' aspect rings true, at least in certain respects.
You have raised some interesting points here. That a large numbers of people condone a given practice within a culture does make mean that it is a rational code of conduct. Look at the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of 'witches,' is but one of many examples from history.
While a particular culture is what identifies and bonds members of a community, it does not make that culture automatically ethical. Any culture that forces inhumane ritual's or practices as part of its ethos is in need of enlightenment. However, as evolution is usually on the side of the strongest unless a stronger force eliminates them nothing will change for these bullies unless another comes forth to stop them.
A very considered answer. Refreshing to see.
Hell no. All ideas and beliefs are not equal.