Article Text
Response
Response
What philosophers can contribute in the face of fundamental empirical disagreement: a response to Benatar and Lang
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
-
↵i Such an exploration is particularly useful when it demonstrates that, even conceding to opponents of a certain practice (some of) their empirical claims, the normative outcome remains unchanged.
-
↵ii In retrospect, I should have included a question mark next to the cost of reduced sexual pleasure in my table.
-
↵iii I argue that the greater health complications and more drastic reduction in sexual pleasure from female genital cutting can explain why that practice (but not male circumcision) is impermissible.3
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- On the impermissibility of infant male circumcision: a response to Mazor (2013)
- Circumcision, sexual dysfunction and the child's best interests: why the anatomical details matter
- Evaluations of circumcision should be circumscribed by the evidence
- Sexual rights and disability
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- Temporising and respect for patient self-determination
- Sex rights for the disabled?
- The Jew’s penis: circumcision and sexual pathology in eighteenth-century England
- Human-tissue-related inventions: ownership and intellectual property rights in international collaborative research in developing countries