Female Genital Mutilation: Universal Moral Absolutist

Known as a practice that began to gain momentum over two thousand years ago, female genital mutilation is a controversial procedure that is regarded by some as a right of passage and an essentiality to one’s culture; however, others have designated female genital mutilation as a practice that violates one’s basic human rights, has no medical benefits, and causes reproductive complications that can be detrimental the livelihood of the mother and child (“Female Genital Mutilation”). In many cultures, Female Genital Mutilation serves as a way to ensure that a woman’s virginity is kept until she is married (“Historical and Cultural”). In modern times, female genital mutilation has emerged as a conflict of morality. In this paper I will be presenting

When it comes to the practice of female genital mutilation, the cultural relativist would argue that we are in no position to make a universal moral judgement because we are not in a position where we understand, tolerate, and respect the culture. Cultural relativism also argues that we should not form universal moral judgements; therefore, the cultural relativist would dismiss the argument about female genital mutilation and conclude that the practice is only morally correct and understandable within the cultures that practice it. This argument is internally inconsistent because it consists of a universal moral judgement that saus universal moral judgements should not be made. Moral absolutism, as mentioned earlier, embraces universal moral judgements. In this case, a moral absolutist would form a universal moral judgement on female genital mutilation. As a moral absolutist, I would like to form a universal moral judgement on female genital mutilation and conclude that it is morally wrong. It is arguable that we do, in fact, live in the same moral world, which gives me the right to criticize the practice of female genital mutilation. It is also commendable to say that we live in the same moral world because,

Following the perspective of the moral absolutist, I would like to reject a number of premises outlined by the cultural relativist. First, I would like to reject cultural relativism’s conclusion that it promotes tolerance and respect. I would first like to reject this conclusion by rejecting one of the premises, which states that ethical relativism encourages tolerance and respect because it prevents bigotry, racism, and ethnocentrism. I am rejecting this premise because it contradicts itself by stating that cultural relativism encourages tolerance and respect. Since a disagreeing nature is cultivated by human’s perspective of good and evil, it is conclusive that this nature influences the growth bigotry, racism, and ethnocentrism. Therefore, one cannot form judgements in the presence of bigotry, racism, and ethnocentrism. Cultural relativism also maintains the idea that people of different cultures are not in a place where they understand the practices of another culture. Since ethical relativism reaches this conclusion, it is arguable to say that this premise contradicts the idea behind ethical relativism because one must be able to understand a culture in