Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

Originally posted by FMF
In so far as genital mutilation around the world is practiced by people who sincerely believe it benefits the children it's done to, is it - in all such cases - morally sound?

Their motivations would be morally sound.

Since I believe it does not benefit the children I think it shouldn't be done and I think it should be stopped, by force if necessary.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Their motivations would be morally sound.

What about their behaviour?

Originally posted by FMF
You are telling me that I always have to declare other people's behaviour morally sound regardless of what I believe?

Not always, dependant on their motivations. And again, morally sound motivations might still result in bad actions.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Since I believe genital mutilation does not benefit the children I think it shouldn't be done and I think it should be stopped, by force if necessary.

Even though you judge it to be morally sound?

Originally posted by FMF
What about their behaviour?

Their behaviour, influenced by their morally sound motivations, would also be morally sound.

Originally posted by FMF
Even though you judge it to be morally sound?

Yes.

A mother having killed her baby because she believed it was possessed by the devil would probably go to jail.

In reality, she was probably insane and didn't kill her baby because she was morally unsound, but because she sincerely believed she did the right thing. In a perfect society, we shouldn't judge this woman for being immoral but we should try to cure people from such mental sicknesses, don't you think?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Their behaviour, influenced by their morally sound motivations, would also be morally sound.

So you have arrived at a declaration that genital mutilation is morally sound. May I ask, did you already hold that opinion before this conversation started?

Originally posted by FMF
So you have arrived at a declaration that genital mutilation is morally sound. May I ask, did you already hold that opinion before this conversation started?

Not necessarily, because this conversation has turned into a rather extreme hypothetical. In reality, I believe many theists act out of selfish reasons. Furthermore, me judging this behaviour possibly morally sound does not mean we should allow it.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
In a perfect society, we shouldn't judge this woman for being immoral but we should try to cure people from such mental sicknesses, don't you think?

Are we still talking more or less about my OP?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Not necessarily, because this conversation has turned into a rather extreme hypothetical.

There is nothing hypothetical about genital mutilation or the sincerity with which it's carried out. Are you now declaring that your declaration that genital mutilation is morally sound is only hypothetical?

Originally posted by FMF
There is nothing hypothetical about genital mutilation or the sincerity with which it's carried out. Are you now declaring that your declaration that genital mutilation is morally sound is only hypothetical?

I would say that the moral soundness of genital mutilation depends on the society in which it takes place. There are clearly societies where not performing it would be far more detrimental than performing it. For example, a Jew not being circumcised, or in some parts of Africa where it is believed circumcision is a good HIV preventative.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would say that the moral soundness of genital mutilation depends on the society in which it takes place. There are clearly societies where not performing it would be far more detrimental than performing it. For example, a Jew not being circumcised, or in some parts of Africa where it is believed circumcision is a good HIV preventative.

Fair enough. Actually what I had in mind was stuff like the cutting off of girls' clitorises.

Originally posted by FMF
There is nothing hypothetical about genital mutilation or the sincerity with which it's carried out. Are you now declaring that your declaration that genital mutilation is morally sound is only hypothetical?

The hypothetical which I mean is the one where many of these actions we speak of are done in the best interest of the one undergoing the action. As I said, I believe this is not the case, in reality these actions are often done for cultural reasons ["it's tradition"] or, particulary in the case of proselytizing, to stroke the ego of the one doing the proselytizing.

Edit: actually, I should be honest here, and say that I don't have good evidence for this last statement. I don't know how often times these actions are done solely in the best interest of the one undergoing the action.

Originally posted by FMF
Are we still talking more or less about my OP?

If you wish to go back to what it strictly said in the OP, that's fine with me. But you were the one who brought up genital mutilation and it drifted from there.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
The hypothetical which I mean is the one where many of these actions we speak of are done in the best interest of the one undergoing the action. As I said, I believe this is not the case, in reality these actions are often done for cultural reasons ["it's tradition"] or, particulary in the case of proselytizing, to stroke the ego of the one doing the proselytizing.

So if it involves the stuff you typed after "As I said..." (above) then it's "morally unsound" but if it's either hypothetical or done by someone mentally ill like the woman who killed her baby, it's "morally sound", fair summary?