Letters to the Editor
-
Here's a mild position
The controversy surrounding routine infant circumcision means that it is not a strongly justified violation of moral rules. An example of a strongly justified violation of moral rules is amputating a limb to save a life. This violates "do not disable" and "do not cause pain" but there are virtually no equally-informed, impartial rational persons who would want to publicly disallow amputations that save lives.
An example of a weakly justified violation of moral rules is civil disobedience. This is controversial: it violates the moral duty to obey the law, and it may be punished. Anyone who engages in civil disobedience understands that they can themselves arrested, and that it is not morally wrong for them to have to face consequences for an act of disobedience.
Routine infant circumcision is controversial--it is false that only a few fanatics oppose the procedure, and that the vocal minority of universal circumcision advocates effectively constitute the overwhelming majority of equally informed, impartial rational persons. Because of the controversy surrounding routine infant circumcision, it is somewhat like civil disobedience in that it is not morally impermissible to punish the violation of moral rules that it violates (do not cause pain, do not diminish pleasure, do not disable, do not limit freedom, and so on).
There is a difference about the source of the controversy: the moral controversy may concern the class of beings protected by morality. Morality itself cannot decide that: this is often an ideological matter, and has to be decided in the legal and political system. Animal rights and abortion fall into this category; routine infant circumcision might be one of these cases. If the disagreement is ideological (for males it always is appropriate unless there are medical contraindications, but for females it is never appropriate; or it must be done for religious reasons), then the matter has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution.
But the source of the controversy doesn't eliminate the controversy: it makes it considerably more difficult to claim that persons opposed to routine circumcision are necessarily a marginal fringe of fanatics. On the contrary, the controversy weakens the claim of circumcision proponents that the procedure is strongly justified, and that it may be performed without any moral compunction whatsoever.