Circumcision is a touchy and controversial topic that has been sweeping our world and the religious and ethical views that come with it. Female circumcision is the practice of removing a female’s external genitalia—most notably, the clitoris and labia. This practice is common in Africa and the Middle East; in contrast, it is frowned upon in the Western hemisphere and even illegal in the UK. Female circumcision is performed on young, helpless girls who have no say in whether they want the procedure performed or not—their parents and community decide for them. In addition, the procedure is performed by a non-certified practitioner who “uses a small knife or razor blade but no anesthesia” (Ashford). Female mutilation is morally wrong and unethical due to the fact that it is an unnecessary procedure that carries many medical ...view middle of the document...
Lenders also in the wrong, if they choose to help fund and contribute to the practice of female circumcision. Even though they are indirectly connected to the practice, deciding to be a part of torture and mutilation links them immorally. It would be morally just if lenders chose to refuse to contribute, because it would show that they took a stance against female mutilation by deciding not to aid in the practice. In addition, if lenders want to take an even more proactive approach against the practice, they should help fund against female mutilation; for example, donating to activist groups.
The ethical dilemma of why female mutilation is such a controversial topic is because of the Westerners’ pressure on the governments of countries that practice female circumcision. Westerners have been pressuring foreign governments to “outlaw the practice and to crack down on the women who make a business of it because they are violating the human rights of thousands of girls” (Ashford). Although Westerners cannot be allowed to govern other countries that they do not have control of, they are allowed to voice their opinions on what is morally right or wrong. So yes, it is not wrong for the American and European governments to pressure North African governments due to the fact that female circumcision is a universal wrong.
Therefore, female circumcision does not support the model of ethical relativism. Instead, the practice falls under the model of utilitarianism, since the concept and practice is a universal wrong. Even though North African governments allow the practice to continue and whether or not individually they condone it, they know that it is morally wrong because it falls under the category of torture; therefore, it is a certain concept that is wrong, no matter what. Female circumcision is a morally unjust practice that must be condemned, not condoned, universally.