For several years, the anti-circumcision folks were gathering momentum. The all hell broke loose:

“WHO Recommends Circumcision, Citing HIV Data”

In addition, the US based CDC (Centers for Disease Control) now states that:

large retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis.

On the issue of ethics, which is where the anti-circumcision crowd seems to have complaints:

Some persons have raised ethical objections to asking parents to make decisions about elective surgery during infancy, particularly when it is done primarily to protect against risks of HIV and STDs that don’t occur until young adulthood, but other ethicists have found it an appropriate parental proxy decision.

On the penile sensation front:

Well-designed studies of sexual sensation and function in relation to male circumcision are few, and the results present a mixed picture. Taken as a whole, the studies suggest that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision. However, several studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most report either improvement or no change.

With Time magazine declaring the discovery that “Circumcision Can Prevent HIV” to be the #1 Medical Breakthrough of 2007, the tide has definitely turned against the anti-circumcision crowd.

All that is fine and good. From what I’ve seen, the people who oppose circumcision oppose it on anti-religious grounds.

But the fact remains that circumcision has serious risks. The story of David Reimer ought to give all parents pause.

David was the victim of circumcision gone wrong. He lost his penis; was raised as a girl; grew up and rebelled against the forced gender alteration; underwent surgery to become male again; and eventually took his own life.

Granted, that is a nightmare most circumcised individuals will never go through. But the risk is there all the same.

So the question for the political theorist is, how do we differentiate harmful acts from non-harmful acts? And that isn’t even  it. We have no authority to prevent parents from harming their kids in most cases. Every time a parent puts a kid in an automobile, the kid is being exposed to some risk. You just cannot avoid risk, and you can’t prevent all harm.

The simple fact is, no parent would want their child to live a life of perfect safety. There are too many fun and challenging activities that involve risk, some which involve high risk.

It seems to me that there is an implicit contract between parent and child which provides the parent with the right to rear the child in a manner in which the parent sees fit; and placing an obligation on the parent to rear the child with interests of the child paramount.

Cutting off a finger for no reason – that isn’t in the interest of the child. Circumcision clearly is in the interests of the child when done for medical reasons.

I previously wrote a very short post condemning Richard Dawkins for his blithe identification of suffering, or pain, with evil. In his book, The God Delusion, he identifies with the “consequentialist, or utilitarian” moral viewpoint.

The problems with consequentialist morality are several, but I want to focus on just one: The identification of good with pleasure (more precisely, the satisfaction of desire) and evil with pain or suffering.

Let’s say that George would derive much satisfaction and pleasure from molesting babies. The babies are not aware that they are being molested, so they derive no pain or suffering from the molestations. According to consequetialist morality, George has the green light to molest.

That’s absurd, but let’s take it further. Let us suppose that of all the alternatives, George’s possible course of action which will create the most satisfaction and the most pleasure is the course of action wherein he molests babies and comatose hospital patients.

If indeed that is the course of action which will produce the most satisfaction, then it is not only an option which is morally okay; no, he is now morally required to pursue that course of action.

What is missing from consequentialism, as we see from the thought experiment, is a respect for other individuals. As long as they do not suffer, George may do as he likes with them.

But this criticism, as I have now written it, fails to address the most serious problem, as I see it, of consequentialism.

To say that pleasure is good, that satisfaction of desires is good, seems shallow. Given that course of action “A” and course of action “B” will produce the same amount of desire satisfaction and pleasure, consequentialism cannot differentiate amongst the two. But if course of action “A” involves working at a porn video outlet, and course of action “B” involves the study of philosophy, other moralities can differentiate. The one which realizes the intellectual capacity of the agent is preferable; not only is it preferable under the stated circumstances, it is preferable even if it involves more frustration and less pleasure than working at a porn video outlet.

It is regarded as such because of the higher value attached to rational autonomy. The paradox, as John Stuart Mill put it: It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

If we agree with that statement, then we must admit that our valuation of pleasure and satisfaction is amiss. Something is overriding the value of satisfaction. What precisely is it? If we can identify what it is that is overriding satisfaction of desire, we may be onto something. As it stands now, consequentialists are damning themselves to be satisfied pigs rather than dissatisfied human beings.

What matters about anything from a moral point of view is “Does anybody or anything suffer?”… So, this obsession with the sacredness of human life is exactly the kind of obscurantist thinking which I associate with religion.

That’s what Richard Dawkins had to say in this video. It clearly indicates a utilitarian viewpoint. From all I’ve read of Dawkins, and his views about animal rights, I’m guessing that his moral position is close to Peter Singer’s.

The odd thing is that Dawkins appears to think that it is universally accepted that pleasure is the definition of good and suffering in the definition of evil. Surely he is aware that the tide has turned sharply against collectivist, anti-individualist moral theories.

In Japanese prisons, compliance with rules is extremely high. And that fact is quite remarkable considering the strictness of Japanese prisons.

In solitary confinement, commonly referred to as “the hole” in English or 懲罰 in Japanese, the prisoner is awoken at at 7am. Within minutes, the futon must be folded up neatly and stored. The blanket is then folded neatly and placed precisely centered on top of the futon. The pillow is then place precisely centered on top of the blanket. Any deviation from precise folding or precise placement is subject to strict punishment. Punishment may include forced standing at attention or reduced food rations.

After the bedding is properly stored, the inmate will sit seiza on the tatami floor, similar to what this guy is doing.

As one sits seiza, his arms must be straightly extended so that each hand, palm down, is in the top of the knee. The head may not move side to side. The eyes must face forward. Looking side to side or up or down is cause for punishment. Of course, slouching to one side is strictly prohibited. Shoulder back, neck straight, chin up.

The inmate will sit in this position contemplating his wrong-doing. At lunch, he may eat. After eating, he will sit seiza until dinner. After dinner, he will be given a thin cushion to sit on until lights out, at which time he will place the futon on the tatami, and go to sleep.

During solitary confinement, there is no talking whatsoever. No noise whatsoever. No external stimuli.

I did 13 months of solitary confinement before being moved to general population. During this time, it’s best to learn the lesson of Zen. That is, you cannot be frustrated in your desires if you have no desires. If somebody wants to torture you, instead of fearing the torture, embrace it, love it. Whatever somebody forces upon you, anticipate it and embrace it eagerly.If somebody is going to hit you and you can do nothing about it, then condition yourself to love being hit. Then he will not be inflicting pain, he will be doing you a favor.

In general population, instead of sitting seiza, the inmate works in factories on the prison ground. In the prison I was in, one of the factories did welding. Another of the factories shaped metal bars. Another manufactured plastic toys for Sanrio. There was one factory which did dry cleaning for officers of the Japanese Self Defense Forces.

During work hours, there is no talking. Come to think of it, talking is generally prohibited, except during chow time or in the showers.

In the factories, one must sit or stand in strictly enforced manner – good posture – and must not look side to side, up or down. The eyes must not stray from the work.

All walking is done in military “marching” style. Any causal walking is prohibited. There are strict degrees to which the legs and arms must reach when marching.

You might wonder how they maintain such order. At first glance, it would seem impossible. After all, the guards cannot force somebody to obey. They can only make rules, and if the inmates don’t obey, there’s little they can do.

There is of course some physical abuse. But how effective would it be to assault a convicted murderer who really has no qualms about inflicting pain in return? It isn’t effective, and the guards know it.

That’s why they don’t assault the inmate who is violating the rules. They assault somebody else, in full view of the inmate who violated the rule. Instead of assaulting me for my bad posture, they beat up an elderly guy and then asked me if I had learned my lesson. Indeed, I had. I would gladly take an assault or two, and probably fight back. In fact, I did assault a guard. But how can I in good conscience violate rules when I know some innocent fellow is going to take my beating for me?

I couldn’t.

Knowing how rules are enforced in Japanese prisons, it made me wonder what really happened in Nagoya Prison, where an inmate died after the guards put a high pressure fire hose up his buttocks and turned the water on.

Was the inmate being punished for his own actions, or was he being punished as a deterrent to somebody else? The guards, who were indicted, claim they were simply washing the inmate.

In recent decades, “morality” has become a bad word. Truth is relative, they say. So what may be morally wrong to you isn’t necessarily morally wrong to others. Indeed, if you mention morality, I’ll immediately suspect that you are an un-enlightened bigot.

That’s all good and fine for morality. The problem is that in our democratic state, idiots on both the Left and Right universally believe that law should be determined by morality. I’ve spoken about this in the past elsewhere; suffice it for me to say now that morality is no better a foundation for law than astrology.

What I want to talk about today is lying. I believe honesty is always the best policy. Some people think I am making a moral statement. I’m not. I am saying that when we deal with others, there is an implied, tacit agreement to deal with others honesty. We do not say, “I’m telling you the truth” every time we start to speak, but it’s implied. When I ask my child if he did his homework, I’m not asking for any response; I’m asking for the truth.

One thing I really hate to hear is that honesty is the best policy because if you lie, you lose all credibility. No matter what the cost benefit analysis, honesty is an entitlement of those with whom we choose to communicate.

But we all lie nonetheless. I certainly do. It bothers me to lie, but I do it in certain cases. Usually when telling the truth would be too painful for the person asking the question.

For example, say you have a girlfriend who fancies herself a good cook. In fact, cooking is her paramount area of pride; an area from which she derives confidence and emotional support.

Within the realm of cooking, let’s say she has particular pride in her veal parmesan. Now suppose she asks you if your ex’s veal parmesan was as good as hers, and the truthful answer would be that your ex’s veal parmesan was the best you’ve ever had – would you answer honestly?

In this case, I do not think the girlfriend is asking for an honest answer. She’s asking for affirmation of her cooking skills. She has assumed that her cooking is superior, and simply wants to hear “yes, yours is the best”.

In this case, I would lie. Indeed, I would. I would not want to cause emotional damage to the girlfriend for the sake of honesty in answering such an inconsequential, trivial question.

When I was a young man, decades ago, I was a hopelessly inept lover. I asked a girlfriend if I was the best she had ever had. She was pained to answer, but did so honestly, and told me specifically that her last boyfriend had been much more adept at love-making. I was extremely hurt, obviously. I can appreciate the honesty of it now, but at the time it the painfulness of the answer was debilitating. I think a more considerate course of action would have been to educate me in love-making and then answer the question after my skills had surpassed those of her previous lovers. Or simply not answer. Or just lie.

Why did I ask in the first place? Considering the pain the truthful answer caused, I cannot think that I was asking for truth in the first place. In my immaturity I was simply asking for affirmation of my value to the girlfriend. Surely I was doing so in an improper manner.

To take it to an extreme, if your 4 year old daughter asks you if she’s the prettiest girl in the universe, when in fact she’s butt ugly, are you going to tell her the truth?

I have a daughter who is quite attractive. In fact a state patrol officer let me off with a warning once stating that it was because my daughter was so beautiful. But even if she were not so beautiful, if she were a four year old and asked me that question, I would tell her she is the prettiest girl in the universe. I would of course raise her to understand that physical appearance is not important. But I think that lying in that case is acceptable because she’s not really asking if she is pretty – she’s asking how much I love her.

Still, it’s painful to put forth an argument that lying is okay in some situations. It seems like a slippery slope. Where does the train stop next? Lying is okay whenever and however as long as nobody is hurt?