Cultural relativists maintain that all moral standards are a cultural construct, and that since our culture is just one among many, any other culture has just as much right to set its own moral standards as we have. In other words, in a pluralist world, each culture is entitled to its own moral viewpoint. This then is the position of the cultural relativist, and it is not so easy to attack, since there is always the sneaky suspicion that since we are expressing our point of view from within our own particular culture, we may be being prejudiced and partial, and we may be adopting a position of moral superiority simply based on our prejudices towards a different culture deemed to be inferior to ours. Indeed we may only be partly aware of these prejudices, having grown up with them, and having internalized them. This is true on both sides. A Western society may be just as oblivious to its own cultural defects as an African society is towards its cultural defects.

If we accept the position of the cultural relativist, we should not feel there is anything wrong with the practice of female genital mutilation. Indeed it should be our duty to defend the practice since it is morally right within their culture. But we feel something is wrong here. We have a gut response to the horrifying ordeal undergone by these young female children against their will. We feel the need to speak out against it. Are we entitled to say that it is wrong? We are certainly entitled to free speech. It is our duty to speak out when we see cruelty and injustice to our fellow human beings. If it is wrong, it is wrong for reasons, and not just because it is culturally different. We should not be gagged because of the geographical distance or cultural distance between us.

An initial emotional reaction may indicate to us that there is an injustice of some sort, but a gut feeling is not a firm basis for making a rational moral decision. It requires sensible consideration of the facts before we can act on those feelings. How then do we decide when a particular cultural practice, such as female genital mutilation, is wrong, and what to do about it? We ought to look at the reasons for their belief and our reasons for rejecting them. Then we should look at the shared values based on the universal human condition. Then we each should decide rationally what is right based on justice, equality and impartiality and without recourse to absolute cultural values such as laws, religion or culture.

From the African point of view, female genital mutilation is a traditional African practice based originally on animism, and for a long time it was sanctioned by their religion - Moslem, Christian or Jewish – although the major religions have all now distanced themselves from the practice. It is supposed to be a ‘purification’ process. The African words for it mean ‘purification’. By this practice, the women become marked into the culture, and are supposed to be more desirable to the male within that culture. Or so the practitioners would have us believe.

From our point of view, we see that the benefit of the practice to those in positions of power in a harsh male-dominated society is that it oppresses the women, leaving most of them cowed and subdued (if they manage to live through it). Most women subjected to such treatment are likely to feel that they have very few rights. Of course, the women who perform the operation for money are probably less likely to object to it, and there will be a number of women who have internalized the tradition, and now see nothing wrong with it.

To us, the practice is unfair to women, it is an abuse of children, and it has no positive benefit to society. What possible benefit can it be to the millions of young girls who are forced to endure it? It does not make them better people. Removing their ability to achieve clitoral orgasms does not make them better lovers. Subdued and intimidated they may be, but that does not make them better equipped to serve fulfilled active lives as mature female citizens. Are they better wives afterwards? Not at all - it is an extreme health risk. Many of the victims lead a life of constant pain thereafter, never really recovering. In this condition, they are more, rather than less, of a burden to their husbands and their society. As many as ten percent die before they recover. I assume that all would agree that killing children, intentionally or otherwise, is wrong. From the economic perspective alone, in countries where there is already such scarcity, it is a terrible waste of human resources.

The first thing to realize is that we are not alone in thinking this. Many Africans feel that the practice is wrong. African women, and some men, have been criticizing the practice for a long time, and there was the well-reported case in 1996 of the young 17-year-old Fauziya Kassindja from Togo who fled to America to avoid being subjected to female genital mutilation. So it is not true to say that the practice just seems cruel to our sensitive Western feelings, and that all Africans involved do not see anything wrong with it. It is just that some of the Africans place a higher value on the practice for reasons that we do not accept. We should try to persuade them that it is cruel and irrational.

Are we entitled to act to prevent it? From a Kantian perspective, not only are we entitled to act to prevent it, but we have an imperfect duty to do so. We may not be obligated to do so all the time, because we may have other moral obligations. It may be that the distance between us and Africa may make our efforts in that direction less productive than acting on moral issues closer to home. But I find it hard to imagine any cultural practice in the West which inflicts as much pain and suffering on young girls as this. I would therefore urge everyone to do as much as they can to prevent it.

From a more Utilitarian standpoint, if we consider female genital mutilation to be a severe moral injustice, then we should be actively working full time to prevent it, and we should go on sacrificing anything of lesser moral significance to achieve that end. This is Peter Singer’s point of view on famine relief[i], and it could as easily be applied to preventing female genital mutilation, except for one thing. Famine affects all in a particular area, regardless of age, gender or culture. The starving are crying out for help, and usually the governments are accepting of aid. With female genital mutilation, our offers of help can easily be envisaged as interference. We could be accused of Paternalism.

It is important to realise that the plight of the African countries is largely as a result of a long history of Western colonialism, exploitation and oppression. Is it surprising that they resent Western interference? To the Africans, the West is immoral. They find our sexual licentiousness far removed from their culture. There is no doubt that there is much wrong with the Western way of life though I would argue that Western sexual licentiousness does not cause harm on anything like the same scale as female genital mutilation. However, the understandable hostility from Africans towards the West makes it makes it more difficult to work out the best possible course of action. Nevertheless we should not be prevented from acting.

Supporting the voices of resistance which are heard coming from within the culture is an obvious way to help them. However, we must be careful not to cause a backlash of retaliation against them from the local leaders. We could also help by donating money to organisations which send educators to these African countries. These educators are encouraging them to give up the practice. I understand a great deal of success has come about by organising festivals which commemorate the cessation of the practice. Fortunately, in many countries it is now against the law, although it still continues. But slowly female genital mutilation is being eradicated. It is our choice how we act, but acting morally should be our duty and we should be seen to be sincere, and not just culturally posturing.[ii]

Word Count 1420 excluding Headers/Footnotes
[i] Argument from “Practical Ethics” P. Singer 2nd Ed. CUP 1993 p229-246
[ii] Acknowledgement to M.Nussbaum “Judging Other Cultures: The Case of Genital Mutilation” from Sex and Social Justice by M.Nussbaum 1999 OUPjohnboon

There is no doubt that man is ineluctably social. That is not to say that man’s nature is essentially social, for it is possible to choose to be asocial, to live in isolation. The fact that man has freedom of choice renders any essential human nature impossible to define, since man is capable of choosing the opposite. The over-riding quality of human nature is freedom of choice. This accounts for the huge variety of types of human nature.

Some people actually choose to live in isolation – hermits. But prolonged periods of accidental or enforced solitude are hard to bear. Solitary confinement is a form of torture. Those people who choose to be alone - and most people need to escape from others from time to time - do so only, knowing full well that they can be with other people when they choose to be.

It is not true, therefore, to say that man’s nature is essentially social, since man has freedom to choose his own passion. He doesn’t choose his own existence. He doesn’t choose his own birth. He is not responsible for his being, but he is responsible for whatever choices he makes once he is born and consciously able to make a decision using his own individual freedom.

If he chooses to be a hermit, then he can be a hermit. If he chooses to live his life with others, then he is a social being. However, a hermit’s life is chosen by very few, and a hermit must come to grips with his own incompleteness on his own.

That is not to say that not everybody has this obligation to face their own incompleteness. On the contrary, everyone has to come to grips with his own incompleteness, since all men are born with a lack of completeness. From the moment he becomes conscious, he also becomes conscious of boundaries to his consciousness. He becomes conscious of what is not. He experiences a lack. This manifests itself in his desires and intentions. To desire something, he must first be conscious that it is not there. To intend to do something, that act cannot already have been performed. Thus desire and intent are two consequences of the lack.

The lack of totality is not transcendent; it is at the very heart of his being. It is not something that can be removed through thinking about it. This lack is not dependent on the presence or absence of other people. It is a fundamental part of our existence.

However, man is born into a social setting and that affects the way he experiences the lack. As a baby, his mother and family nurture and protect him. As his appreciation of his surroundings develops, he realizes that he is a part of society, which provides for his welfare, and which makes demands upon him. He receives the benefits that society has to offer, and he contributes to that society. He becomes a person in society and realizes himself as a social being. He realizes the lack of completeness as a lack of others.

If in spite of everything he chooses to live like Robinson Crusoe, then he shoulders all the burden of production himself, and retains all that is produced. He is self-sufficient, but he is diminished by being himself alone.
If on the other hand he chooses to live in society, then he shares in the production, and receives a share of what is produced. He is not self-sufficient, he feels part of a large whole, but he feels himself to be more complete.

Of course there is a biological need to live socially for the fulfillment of sex and procreation and the rearing of the young, but man can deny that if he chooses, and even those who are incapable of fulfilling their sexual role – for example, through, age, illness or sexual orientation – need society.

The vast majority of people choose to live within society, and they do so for the recognition of self that it affords. Since sight is the dominant sense, the gaze of others is important. We want to be looked at. We want to increase our self-esteem in the eyes of others. We want to look at others. We want to check other people out.

This is not sheer vanity or self-pride. Those people who become so puffed up with their own self-importance may feel that they score over others in comparison, but they become caricatures of their own self. They are making their need for others so obvious, that they appear inadequate in their incompleteness.

All people who live in society are searching for their missing complement which will allow their passion to expand and their feelings of lack to diminish. They need the judgment, approval, criticism, recognition, reinforcement that they get from others.