rebelsquirrell 说:
Even if two conflicting morality's prescriptions can be fulfilled one's own "rational ought to's" do not disappear.
Rationally one should subvert the other.
I'm aware that we'll open a completely new can of worms here, but I'm willing to do it. What can possibly go wrong?
Moral relativity is not a term I chose. Some other guy mentioned and I played along.
But if we're going into detail here, this term is not exactly precise. There is more to this relativity than just morals.
Every moral decision is based in speaker's ratio. If culturally he is raised as an individualist and believes that human life and personal freedom are more important than cultural integrity and tradition, that's his rational premise in a discussion. But if one was raised in a rigid traditional society, he has a different starting point. His arguments can be as rational as the other guy's but they're based in different initial data.
I'm not willing to say that one view point is better than the other. That said, I'm also not willing to say that there should be no clashes and tension between cultures. It's a natural historical process.
I'm not trying to assume some moral higher ground. Nor am I willing to be apathetically neutral as Jhess suggests.
But the truth with the law against circumcision is that it will (arguably) help very few people in a very minor way and piss off in a rather bad way a numerous groups of people, entire nations. Colour this argument utilitarian if you will.
If the reason behind this discussion is to actually make jews' and muslims' life better, rather than prove that their traditions are invalid (as we should surely do with slavers and cannibals), then we need to take into account their opinion on the issue.