Skip Navigation

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2008 33(4):394-400; doi:10.1093/jmp/jhn015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Putman, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Putman, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

The Vagueness of "Tradition" and the Pain and Suffering of Children

Daniel Putman

University of Wisconsin–Fox Valley, Menasha, Wisconsin, USA

Address correspondence to: Daniel Putman, Ph.D., Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin–Fox Valley, 1478 Midway Road, Menasha, WI 54952. E-mail: dan.putman{at}uwc.edu


  Abstract

The argument presented by Jeffrey Bishop that "tradition" justifies female circumcision is grounded on the assumption that reason is always situated within traditions and that traditions are the foundational source of values. I argue that the concept of tradition is inherently vague and, as such, cannot support the weight of the argument that makes it the final arbiter of moral values. The concept especially does not justify intense pain and suffering inflicted on children.

Keywords: female circumcision, liberalism, tradition


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Med PhilosHome page
H. A. Phillips
Introduction
J Med Philos, August 1, 2008; 33(4): 295 - 301.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.