“What's Culture Got to Do with It? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision.”

There's a well-known article “What's Culture Got to Do with It? Excising the Harmful Tradition of Female Circumcision.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 106, no. 8, 1993, pp. 1944–1961. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1341791.  

The article is now old and is potentially problematic in a number of ways: e.g., it might suggest that most female genital cutting (now what is or should be the preferred term, given Brian Earp's research on the issues) is the "extreme" form that it focuses on when most of it is, in fact, far less "extreme." And it ignores that these less extreme versions are also usually done to boys.

And, of course, the article doesn't think about the broader implications of the issues: e.g., it doesn't think about whether an argument like this is sound:

1. Any female genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
2. If any female genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong, then any male genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
3. Therefore, any male genital cutting (if not for medically justified reasons or done on consenting adults) is wrong.
4. Therefore, routine male circumcision (on infants, not for medically-justified reasons) is wrong. 

But the article is still useful, at least in that it discusses some (but not all) reasons given in favor of female genital cutting. First, it's interesting to know that reasons are given for this practice, and we can see why these reasons are bad reasons and that's this isn't just our "opinion" or "feelings" or whatever. These reasons are good ones for us to practice formulating as logically valid arguments, as syllogisms, that we can then evaluate as sound or not.

Here are the arguments from that section, stated more in a conversational manner, not in valid form:

1. FGM (female genital mutilation) is a tradition. [This argument appeals to relativism, which is false moral theory or principle].

C. Therefore, FGM is MP (morally permissible). 

3. FGM reduces promiscuity. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

5. FGM increases fertility and eases childbirth. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

7. FGM is required by their religion. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

9. FGM makes the women look nice to the men in these cultures.

C: FGM is MP. 

Now, let's state these in valid form:

1. FGM (female genital mutilation) is a tradition. 

2. All traditions are MP. 

C. Therefore, FGM is MP (morally permissible). 

 

3. FGM reduces promiscuity. 

4. All actions that reduce promiscuity are MP.  

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

 

5. FGM increases fertility and eases childbirth. 

6. All actions that increase fertility and ease childbirth are MP.  

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

 

7. FGM is required by their religion. 

8. All actions required by religions (or a persons's religion) are MP.  

C. Therefore, FGM is MP. 

 

9. FGM makes the women look nice and attractive to the men in these cultures.

10. All actions that make someone look nice to someone else are MP.

C: FGM is MP. 

The next question involves figuring out whether the premises above are true or false; the even premises we'd want to evaluate with potential counterexamples. For each argument, if there's at least one false premise, then the argument is unsound. If all the premises are true, then the argument is sound, since the argument is valid. 

Are these are arguments sound or not? Why or why not? If not, which premises are false or unjustified and why?

* "Answers" forthcoming!