By Goodman's analysis, the systematic murder of one million people motivated by the specific intention of genocide is morally worse than the systematic murder of one million and one people selected arbitrarily. The author does not explain why the motivation for unjustified murder is such an important distinction; it would seem that unjustified murder is always wrong and that the scale of victims is always a more accurate measure of that moral offense than the reason or intent behind unjustified murder of innocent people.
Polygamy, Rape, Incest, and Genital Mutilation
Professor Goodman's reasoning about polygamy, rape, incest, and genital mutilation represent his weakest line of reasoning. Specifically, his view of polygamy completely ignores the issue of gender inequality and suggests that polygamy is necessarily harmful to women. The obvious counterargument is that this is only true because of the extent to which women are already objectified and comparatively powerless in patriarchal societies. Without underlying gender inequality, there is no reason that polygamy or polyandry could not be appropriate in certain situations.
Professor Goodman suggests that rape is always wrong, which is absolutely true, but hardly because rape is conceptually different from other forms of abuse and exploitation. It violates the rights, dignity, and autonomy of the victim and causes profound harm; on the other hand, rape is undoubtedly "preferable" to many other imaginable forms of torture. Furthermore, the author suggests that statutory rape is indistinguishable from forced rape. That is also untrue: sexual...
Specifically, he argues that incest is always morally wrong despite the fact that his culture (Judaism), recognizes marriage between first cousins despite the fact that most other Western cultures consider this incestuous, certainly by community beliefs and norms if not necessarily by law. He fails to explain why, in principle, incest is morally wrong apart from potential health issues in reproduction. In fact, in many societies, marriage between first cousins is equally offensive.
By far, Professor Goodman's weakest point is his differentiation of female and male genital mutilation. Both are equally horrific, particularly because they are performed without anesthesia and also without any benefit besides cultural value. In fact, male circumcision does adversely affect sexual pleasure by removing sensitive nerve tissue in the penile glans. Moreover, even if there were a legitimate purpose to male circumcision, the choice to perform the operation without anesthesia cannot be justified morally. In attempting to do so, the author merely illustrates his own cultural bias and, ultimately, demonstrates that even those committed to understanding objective morality may have difficulty escaping their own subjective beliefs and social learning.
