Within applied ethics, specifically in bioethics, the issue of male circumcision is hotly debated by many Ethicists. Now I know to many or the majority of Americans, they will think I am joking when it comes to my position on male circumcision or they will think my position is quite literally a joke. But I think one reason for that is because the plausibility structures of our society make it to where we take it for granted in thinking the male circumcision is morally permissible; we often don't even think about the issue of male circumcision.
But within various normative ethical theories, we can make a plausible case against male circumcision. Let's take one such theory although there are more.
On deontology, we out to stick to rules, our duties/obligations, and preserving the rights of others. We are obliged to preserve the rights of others. Murder is wrong in itself and it takes away the rights of others by not treating them as ends in themselves. People have the right to life, so we have a duty to keep those rights. Now let's apply this to male circumcision.
People have the right to not have their body parts removed nor infringed upon without consent, unless removing that body part is necessary to save their life or avoid serious illness that threatens their life. The key is that consent must be preserved. Some might argue that there are health benefits to circumcision, which I doubt and are largely irrelevant reasons. Nevertheless, these minor health benefits can be consented to once the child is an adult who can make an informed decision. I wouldn't pierce someone's ears or belly button when they were a child. Neither would I cut part of their ear cartilage off. The fact is, the foreskin has a function. The function is to protect the penis. In addition, the foreskin is very sensitive and brings sexual pleasure.
I'm not here to condemn anyone. Rather, I want to have discussion and bring more awareness to this topic.
