[lbo-talk] Re: circumcision/relativism/genital multilation

Miles Jackson cqmv at pdx.edu
Tue Feb 8 11:19:19 PST 2005


On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, andie nachgeborenen wrote:


> --- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> Love that rhetoric. Strutting. Savages, etc.

Coming from a lawyer, I'm not sure how to take that--


>
> But you know, Miles, relativism isn't a tolerant
> doctrine. If it is true for us but for them, it's true
> for us, so we take it as true. Ergo, since we agree --
> you too! -- that it's a wicked thing to do to
> multimate women to deny them sexual pleasure, it is in
> fact true for us that it is a wicked thing.

Yep, I agree.


> So why should we be relativists? Why not just say:
> this is an awful thing, but that's not a jsutification
> for imperialism? That way we avoid the irrelevant
> metadiscussion.

Again, I agree. I just want to emphasize that issues like this are in fact often used to justify imperialism (e.g., freeing the women in Afghanistan from the cruel Taliban). I have no problem with people making the moral argument; we just need to be careful about linking the moral argument to political decisions, especially when we're dealing with people who don't share our moral concerns.

Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list