On page 328 of The God Delusion Richard Dawkins writes:
The same tendency to glory in the quaintness of ethnic religious habits, and to justify cruelties in their name crops up again and again. It is the source of squirming internal conflict in the minds of nice liberal people who, on the one hand, cannot bear suffering and cruelty, but on the other hand have been trained by postmodernists and relativists to respect cultures no less than their own. Female circumcision is undoubtedly hideously painful, it sabotage sexual pleasure in women (indeed, this is probably its underlying purpose), one on half of the decent liberal mind wants abolish the practice, The other half, however, ‘respects’ ethnic cultures and fells that we should no interfere if ‘they’ want to mutilate ‘their’ girls.
As a nice liberal person I have no internal conflict regards respecting different cultural beliefs and whilst condemning practices within that culture. Dawkins really sets up a liberal strawperson here complete with the dreaded invocation of the postmodernists. Alas for Dawkins there is a way around the moral relativistic quandary.
Australian philosopher Neil Levy in his book Moral Relativism: A Short Introduction does offer such a way. I wrote on Levy’s views back when I was someone else about two years ago. I have taken the liberty to slightly rework that piece which concentrates on the last two chapters of the book.
In Levy’s book, the second last chapter is titled “Incommensurability and The Shared Code of Morality”. Levy argues that all moral systems must be like our own. He calls this the argument from incommensurability and is obviously influenced by Kuhn. If indeed moral systems are incommensurable (i.e. unable to be compared) then that does stoke the fires of moral relativism. However, if we are to judge a moral system different from ours we have to assume that their moral judgements are correct (and the same as ours). If the moral system were so radically different from ours we would not be able to identify that system as being moral at all.
Relativism seems all but defeated. But wait, there is still some life left. The argument above only defeats global incommensurability. Once we establish that there are areas where two different moral systems agree, a bridgehead is then established. Then we can step in and explore the areas where the systems may disagree. What the argument from incommensurability does is place a constraint on the contents of a moral system. As Levy points out, if moral systems where globally incommensurable they would never conflict and there would be no problem. The problem occurs because incommensurability is local.
Levy explores the idea of honour in Middle Eastern culture and attitudes towards women (including female circumcision) to show how, in the moral fabric of some Middle Eastern cultures, honour killings are explicable and coherent in regards to the culture. So how do we understand and tolerate differing view points and not descend into relativism where we can’t condemn certain practices?
Levy states that while we can’t criticize the notions of honour that are part of the Middle Eastern moral system we can ask its practitioners to justify the form it takes. Defenders of Middle Eastern cultural practices cite perceived differences in intelligence between men and women, the importance of preserving the family unit, that women can’t control their emotions and the sexual power that women have over men. These are the reasons used to justify subjugation of women. But as Levy points out, the reasons have little or no empirical justification. Levy states that “.. the justifications that we offer for our ethical systems had better be broad and as deep as our science, our psychology and our philosophy allow.”
The point is if a moral system appeals to but lacks solid empirical foundation it can be criticized. This is a way out for those who like the appeal of relativism but find it troubling as it seems to prevent criticism of different cultural and moral practices.
Levy’s conclusion (in the final chapter “Beyond Relativism and Absolutism”) is to advocate value pluralism. This allows one to have a principled moral view but also appreciate differences in culture. This is the middle ground between absolutism and relativism. It allows the relativist toleration and respect for different cultures by showing that the values they have are coherent and understandable to those outside that culture. However, it does not advocate respect for all views as constraints are placed on moral system. Via value pluralism we still have the ability to condemn moral practices that we find in other cultures without begging the question.
Dawkins is wrong that female circumcision is a religious practice. It’s a cultural practice in some areas which is engaged in by people of all religions there. It is appalling and should be condemned, but it’s got bugger all to do with religion.
Thanks for the references and summary of Levy’s work – a quick browse of the link suggests that he’s written some interesting papers it would be worth following up when time allows.
I’d also put a question mark over Levy’s ascription of honour killings to “Islamic culture”. Again, my impression was that they were characteristic of regional cultures not religious ones. They’re not found in Malaysia and Indonesia to my knowledge as a widespread cultural practice as far as I know. There are definitely antecedents in some European Mediterranean cultures in the past, but I wouldn’t for that reason describe them as part of “Catholic culture”.
A quick re-read shows the Levy does refer to the honour system as being part of Middle East culture. So that is my mistake not Levy’s and a good point.
Note: I’ve edited my post to better reflect Levy’s views and correct my mistake.
I agree with Shaun that Dawkins has set up a liberal strawman. I also agree with Mark that female circumcision and honour killings are regional cultural practices rather than religious ones. However, I think that male circumcision is a religious practice, because it is so widespread.
Obviously it’s a Jewish religious practice, silkworm, because there’s a ritual that accompanies it, but I’m not aware of any religious justification for male circumcision outside Judaism. I could be wrong of course, but I thought it was something that was part of some sort of hygeine/public health agenda in the West.
And paranoia about masturbation!
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_in_the_18th_century
Silky – Male circumcision is not a religious practice, it’s a cultural practice born out of disease prevention. Put bluntly, sand in the dick leads to abrasions, which leads to infection. Circumcision was seen to prevent this from occurred.
It’s very similar to the Islamic and Jewish tradition of not eating pork. Though it’s now an accepted religious practice, it was born out of an understanding that eating pork led to potential disease – now identified as poisoning via trichinosis because of poorly cooked meat.
silkworm
Coming from an extremely long line of Anglo-Celtic atheists, I can assure you that all Greenfield men have helmuts and not socks.
You multiculturalists are always giving the game away by protesting too much.
I really cannot understand the obsession with picking minor points of criticism with Dawkins substantial analysis of the irrationality of religion and the harmful consequences that flow from the priveleged position accorded to such irrational thought. posswibly the problem is that his work is so strong and rational that thise with a lingering religious workd view cannot deal with the express challenge posed which is to be open and honest in challenging superstition and irrationality and the damage it causes. As someone who was physically assulated on a regular basis by Nuns and then Brothers (both Christian and De La Salle) and who as a 10 year old spent a lengthy period convinced I was damned forever by eating a meat pie on a friday I both enjoyed and welcomed Dawkins book. It has provided me with the intellectual arguments to be more open with the truth and I for one will now be in a better position to ensure that where religion and irrationality attempts to adversely affect my life and my society i will not ‘turn the other cheek’ but proudly challenge its fundamental flaws.
Perhaps Shaun is just using Dawkins as a jumping off point for some other reflections.
Mark, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as that. You might want to read this report from a conference on FGM held in Egypt:
I thought Islam told us to do so
lslamic scholars say there is no justification for it in Islam, but Muslims who actually practice FGM believe it is mandated by their religion.
I say unto you verily, when I was 10 years, yea, my father pointed me to Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html and I have had no problem with religious belief since. It is a good idea to mightily smite the believers from time to time and Dawkins has done this when the Creationists reared their heads again.
Amen.
That’s where it does get thorny, Magenta, I’d agree. Still, the fact that it’s not practiced by Muslims outside those regions suggest the Islamic scholars are right.
KrissD,
I’ve written two posts already on Dawkins (your experiences are well suited to the second one) and plan a few more. This was one, as Mark suggested, a diversion to correct a common misconception (one that Dawkins subscribes to) regarding being a ‘nice liberal’ and being able to criticize other cultures.
I agree with Dawkins on quite a few things and will try to get to those in due course. I’m glad that TGD has helped you but I don’t see why Dawkins should be immune from criticism even if he has raised some important questions. It would be a betrayal of rational thinking to uncritically review Dawkins.
Sorry to disagree with you, Alex, but you can’t deny that a practice is religious simply because it may have had its genesis in some rationally-based cultural custom.
Mark – male circumcision is attended with religious significance in many religions other than Judaism. Nelson Mandela wrote of his own agonising experience in childhood as part of a mystical male initiation rite. It is common in Aboriginal culture as part of secret men’s business. I have attended a Muslim circumcision ceremony-cum-kneesup in Morocco (in which taboos against intoxicants were cunningly navigated by my hosts). The distress of the little boy (aged about 5) was greeted with cheers and laughter. If that ceremony had nothing to do with religion then the distinction was too subtle for me to detect.
And there are plenty of painful practices in indigenous cultures, such as scarification and tooth-removal, which are invested with heaps of religious significance and which have no apparent prophylactic justification.
Thanks for that, Bismarck. I wrote the initial comment before I’d looked up Wikipedia which gave some information on religious significance other than in Judaism, but not to the degree that you have now outlined.
I thought most circumcision in the West nowdays was *also* done as part of a hygiene fad?
Nothing to do with religion.
There’s also the ladies’ choice aspect.
Many women, of whom mothers form a significant sub-set, who prefer their blokes tidied up.
Bismarck is spot on: there’s nothing amazing about people bending the strictures of their religion to allow for booze and hazing, and mixing it all up in a quasi-spiritual package. Why, a lot of the most fun and enjoyable initiation rites combine the two bingefully, which is the very reason David Boon is held in such sacred esteem by Australian cricket fans and alcoholics.
As to tooth removal, in the holy books of Chopper Read you may read the story of the man in the bar who extracted his front eye tooth with needle-nose pliers for a $100 bet.
Just like the Bible, the truth is a matter of faith.
The “cultural” versus “religious” lablel is one big red herring.
How convenient. Glad you came to the rescue with that, or we’d really be up the creek on the matter of asserting western values.
It seems to me that Levy is just deploying Davidson’s argument that mutually incomparable conceptual schemes are an impossibility – but it’s not entirely clear that Davidson’s argument is successful. I haven’t read Levy’s work, so I’m not aware if he defends that argument against it’s more incisive critics. If he hasn’t, I’d be wary of using it as an argument against moral relativism.
I reckon recent studies showing that losing the helmet protects against HIV transmission might point to the origins of this practice.
Um, exactly what concept of “culture” is being called upon here, such that religion may be seen as other-than-cultural?
Anyone?
“losing the helmet”
??!?!??
Now THAT’S circumcision!
Religion is cultural, but not all that is cultural is religious, Captain Oats.
“Religion is cultural, but not all that is cultural is religious, Captain Oats.”
Try telling that to a fundamentalist!
I appreciate that, Mark. I’m simply uncertain as to what is at stake in attempts, with regard to this specific debate, in making the distinction between a “religious practice” and a “cultural practice”.
If point is merely to prevent the reduction of cultural difference to religious difference, then fine. Even so, I’m still puzzled by the suggestion that “it’s got bugger all to do with religion”. Is this to say that no one ever attempts to inflict female circumcision in the name of religious (or, let’s say, spiritual) beliefs? nor ever attempts to “justify” the practice via an appeal to such beliefs?
To put the question in another way, to what extent is the practice imaginable outside a religious framework? not just outside a given religious framework, but outside the context of religion generally speaking?
In asking such questions I don’t at all mean to suggest that the (despicable) practice is purely a religious one, such that any religion that has ever had its name associated with it is irredeemably “evil”. I’m just wondering about this distinction between “culture” and “religion”.
Or again, if one were to concede that the practice has nothing to do with religion, what is it, specifically, that is thought to define (a) culture such that it could be isolated from (its) religious institutions, values, practices, etc.?
Sorry, I’m probably taking this way OT (if not OTT)….
Dawkins’ book is crass beyond descruption. The man is fricking clueless about history, anthropology, and theology. It is embarassing. What is even more perplexing is that he is such a fine writer on evolutionary psychology.
Those who applaud this book, really need to look into what theological system (secular or otherwise) they themselves are locked inside of.
As for this neat distinction between culture and religion. What nonsense. Culture IS religion (plus language).
Sure, circumcision might appear to be a cultural practice (albeit based on religious teachings now.
But for hundreds of thousands of years human males sloped about the world not thinking twice about the offensive nature of their foreskins.
But Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the distinction of being revealed religions.
One day Abraham heard a voice. It said: “Abraham, circumcise yourself.” Now, if you are the first bloke in your tribe ever to have been confronted with such an order, I imagine that many thoughts go through your mind. The first one is “What the hell is circumcision?” Try explaining the concept yourself to someone who hasn’t heard of the operation before. So God would have been compelled to explain in some detail what he meant. “First you grab a pinch of loose skin, then you take a knife … ”
Then, according to Genesis, God told Abraham to fix his sons and his slaves. You can imagine the conversation, “No, really, God told me to do it. And it really doesn’t hurt that much. Here’s one I prepared earlier.” (Genesis, 17:9-14).
If Abraham had said to God, “You’re pulling my leg!” The whole bizarre practice would never have caught on.
However, God knew His mark. Because Abraham had already demonstrated his willingness to use a knife on Isaac’s throat. God must have thought: “Let’s see how far Abraham is willing to go with his little knife fetish.”
All reasonable points and questions, Captain Oats, and ones I doubt we’d settle on a blog thread. I’d want to think more before I assayed an answer.
I suppose my distinction has the motivation of attempting to exclude a sort of reductive essentialism which suggests that anything labelled “religious” therefore makes some sort of globally generalisable point about religion as such, whatever that may mean anyway. “Religion” is itself a term that’s notoriously difficult to define, and with good reason.
I see Dawkins’ arguments as being as simplistic as those of the people who would claim something along the lines of:
P1. Female circumcision is a Muslim practice.
P2. It is evil.
Therefore
C. Islam is evil.
Reducing it to syllogistic form should make the fallacy easy to spot.
I agree with you, Captain Oats. I think an attempt to divorce a ritual that is religiously invested, albeit culturally isolated, from the religion itself is specious. So the ritual is considered heterodox in Rome or Mecca. Big deal. It’s still a religious ritual. Lack of orthodoxy (and who is the judge of that?) is no reason to ignore it.
Female circumcision is not an ARAB Muslim practice. It tends to be concentrated in Africa and Pakistan. Though I understand many other Islamic cultures, particularly Egypt, have started ramping up their fondness for the scalple or the Coke bottle or whatever.
It’s all about resisting “western and crusader imperialism” you see. I should not be surprised if it is sanctioned by the UN. Or maybe they have not got around to it yet. No many Israeli crimes, so little time, and all that.
Precisely Bismarck. And the same applies to the Skoptzy of Russia and the Snake Handlers of the United States.
Who says that God doesn’t use snakes as a medium of communicating His Judgement?
It’s no stranger than any other claims about Godhead.
And no less scripturally vouchsafed.
Ah, good good! Thanks for clarifying.
Goodness me, Katz. Put me down as a moral absolutist. Seriously, I don’t have a problem with viewing cultural/religious practices through my own moral prism. I find some of the Catholic Church’s doctrines eccentric and some bordering on the barbarous. I consider many aspects of Muslim Sharia Law to be well on the other side of the barbarous border. I mightn’t extend that judgment to those religions as a whole, but if those doctrines and practices were sufficiently pervasive, well, if the shoe fits …
But Bismarck, there’s no doctrinal reason why snake handling shouldn’t become pervasive throughout the Christian world (barring a lamentable shortage of snakes, and the darwinian consequences of this particular ritual, of course).
And I could almost guarantee that the only folks handling snakes for religious purposes are folks who have been born into the practice, or folks who have migrated into the practice from other Christian sects.
I’d almost guarantee that there are no ex-muslims or ex-atheists among the snake-handlers.
Thus it can be concluded that Christianity is a pathway to some truly wacky and dangerous practices, just like ecstacy is to heroin.
I went to see a rather cool snakehandler at the Fringe Bar in Ann St once. I didn’t think to ask her what her ex-religion was…
Were either she or her snake circumcised?
I didn’t notice Katz but the metallic bikini looked rather Orientalist.
I trust we are not at cross-purposes, Katz. The evidence, in fact, is that a lot of wacky and dangerous cults have arisen from Christianity over the last couple of millenia. This is no doubt one of the reasons for the strict heirarchical structure in its principal sects and their vigilance on heresy. There are plenty of doctrinal reasons for snake-handling not becoming pervasive, policed by the fact that the Roman, Anglican and Greek authorities maintain a firm grip on orthodoxy and the vast majority of adherents wish to remain communicant. Check out the policies of those authorities on glossolalia, miracles, direct revelation and the like.
You’ll get no argument from me that religious fanaticism and cult behaviour are harmful and that Christianity, like any religion, provides fertile material for the crazy.
I guess a snake would wear a strapless bikini.
“Female circumcision is not an ARAB Muslim practice. It tends to be concentrated in Africa and Pakistan”
Not quite correct, it is widespread and the norm in both Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore (Muslim Community) and is gaining even more ground recently along with the wearing of the medieval rag.
Sorry to be pedantic about this, Mark and Katz, but a snake has no mammary glands. A one-piece is therefore indicated, but its design is problematic. The Royal Herpetelogical Society has determined that snake modesty is best protected with a pastie over the cloaca.
“Dawkins really sets up a liberal strawperson here complete with the dreaded invocation of the postmodernists”
Shaun, Surely Dawkin’s point is to illustrate the “That’s just how they do things here” opt-out. I don’t think it’s a strawperson at all. A very good example would be the recent film “White Masai” in which a German woman marries a traditional Masai Simbu warrior. She has a romanticised notion along the lines of the Noble Savage, yet protests strongly when presented with female circumcision and ignorant superstition. I can’t think of anyone who doesn’t maintain some degree of romance without becoming a boring cynic. Closer to home, it’s like being disappointed when Christians follow the fire-and-brimstone God rather than, y’know, Christ.
“Levyâs conclusion (in the final chapter âBeyond Relativism and Absolutismâ?) is to advocate value pluralism.”
# Or, as we call it, cherry picking.
Never mind all the herpetelogical handling (by the way I reckon a modest serpent would wear a one strap Borat), what about the ritual symbolic cannibalism? Now I reckon that’s a bit freaky-deaky. And it’s not like they serve a decent red with the water crackers anyway.
Good to see round these here parts again Harry.
The trouble is that Dawkins invokes moral relativistic liberals a few times and it irks me. As I’ve said before I expect better from Dawkins. Not because of his politics (of which I have no idea) but from a regard for Dawkins as a great writer and thinker.
heh. Cherry picking maybe but I like Levy’s reasoning when you take this whole book into context. It is a good read of very accessible philosophy.
One thing I’m coming round to is that the infamous Eagleton review isn’t that solid. Reading Eagleton and then Dawkins, methinks Eagleton is missing the point. But that is another post as they say.
Shaun Cronin says:
Boiling ice and squaring circles would be a piece of cake for a “nice liberal person” capable of such monumental internal conflict reconciliations. The Wets ideological contortions on this score are agonising to behold, when not outright comic (eg Sokal Hoax).
When you are in a hole stop digging.
Shaun Cronin says:
But why does the “Southern Hemisphere”‘s pre-modern moral practices “lack solid empirical foundation”? They have worked for most of history and are perfectly consistent with the patriarchal and demographic goals of their cultural powers-that-be. If you want to keep women down and breed lots of loyal relatives then following those traditions is the way to go.
And why shouldnt “good liberal persons” applaud female circumcision, arranged marriages, cousin marriages, Sharia law, polygamy and so on. These practices, religious or not, are all part of the rich texture of that ethnic cultural diversity which so adored by the Wets.
As good multiculturalists we should celebrate them all. And profit from them to, if we are diversity-crats or apparatchiks.
Shaun Cronin says:
So we should respect cultural diversity in morals except where science shows that we shouldn’t. This definitely subordinates values to facts. What if science shows that many forms of cultural diversity are a dead-end so far as progress is concerned?
There is no specifically Islamic or Buddhist way to build a rocket ship or engineer stem cells. There is the best way at a given point of time. It is the growth of universal knowledge that will give us a unified world model and moral, lifting the curse of Babel.
We start with our heads in the sand and our heart in the clouds. The task of a scientific ethic is to bring our various constituents back down to earth to tackle the problems of the real world.
Human knowledge of the world is invariably experientially subjective. Although the world is undoubtedly existentially objective. We square the subjective-objective circle by using the method of science to nudge an empiricist epistemology towards a realistic ontology.
The crooked tree of evolution has endowed us with relative morals. Although the empowerment of morality – helping more people to live healthier and wealthier lives – implies converging allegiance to absolute morals. We square the relativist-absolutist circle by using socio-technological processes that will give us the best chance of ideological progress.
Do the right thing and you will do well. It is no accident that the term “right” means empirically true and ethically good.
In short, once we make set out on the unending quest for an real ontology and a moral ideology the Enlightenment program of using sci-tech to empower progress follows more or less automaticly.
Objectivist epistemics and absolutist ethics are regulative ideals. Like the polar star they are sometimes within sight and reliable guides. But they are liable to shift in bearing with the evolution of knowledge.
Oigal
Thanks for that info. I knew it was expanding, and was confident in naming Egypt. I did not realise it was expanding in our own backyard! Do you have a good discussion of this to give me some backgraound?
If FGM was only practiced by Muslims, we may be justified in saying it is a religious practice, albeit not one sanctioned by Muslim theologists. But in Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea it is practiced by many Christian and animist communities as well. That makes it a primarily cultural, not religious, issue in my book.
And I’m with Dawkins in being scornful of wishy-washy “moderate” religions – his avowed target. Their adherents seem to me to be more willing than the fundies to sacrifice their intellectual integrity to maintain their complacency and comfort. Fundies, whatever the absurdity of their empiric beliefs (and they are absurd), at least suffer the practical disabilities attendant on those beliefs, and they are much less evasive about what those beliefs are.
Paul’s words (Colossians 3:15-16) about lukewarmness ring true for me.
Saint Paul was a wanker, if that’s not too strong a phrase, derrida derrider. Of any of the Apostles it was he who did the worst in bringing to Christianity the nastiest bits of non-scriptural ascetiscism and zealotry. Trust a fucken’ convert to louse up a perfectly good cult, I always say.
By the way, we’ve got to sort out some way of distinguishing ourselves, you and I. The acronyms TDD and DD are far too close to each other on the old visual display unit after I’ve had a few. I never know when I’m being cursed or flattered: tough work for an evolving anthropomorph still struggling with the concept and nature of the Trinity.
Thouh naturally, I should add that a few too many is my kind of pluralism.
I’ve kinda come to the same conclusion, Shaun. Nevertheless I found Eagleton’s exposition interesting.
I’d encourage you to do the post.
I will Brian. I’ve got another Dawkins post in mind first (the evolution of morality).