Ethics, Morality, and the Beliefs We Impose on Children

Wesley Ray | University of the People | PHIL 1402 — Introduction to Philosophy | December 18, 2025

Children cannot choose the belief systems into which they are born. Before they develop the cognitive tools to evaluate truth claims, they are immersed in the religious, cultural, and moral frameworks of their parents and communities. This raises a difficult ethical question: When, if ever, is it morally permissible for outsiders to intervene in cultural or religious practices that are imposed upon children? I argue that intervention is justified when a practice causes irreversible harm to a non-consenting child, regardless of the cultural or religious context from which it arises. The sincere belief of adults does not override the bodily autonomy and future agency of the child.

The clearest case is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), a practice involving the partial or total removal of external female genitalia, often performed on girls between infancy and age fifteen. The World Health Organization (2024) classifies FGM as a violation of human rights, noting that it has no health benefits and causes severe physical and psychological harm. Defenders of the practice often invoke cultural tradition or religious obligation, arguing that outsiders lack the standing to judge another society’s customs. However, this appeal to cultural relativism collapses under scrutiny. A child subjected to FGM cannot meaningfully consent to the procedure. The harm is irreversible. And the justification offered—that tradition demands it—treats the child not as a person with inherent dignity, but as a vessel for cultural continuity.

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative offers a rigorous framework for evaluating this practice. Kant’s first formulation—the Formula of Universal Law—commands us to act only according to principles we could will to become universal laws (Barnes, n.d.). Could we rationally will that all children be subjected to genital cutting based on the traditions of their parents? The answer is plainly no. Men, notably, are rarely asked to accept such a practice for themselves; the asymmetry reveals that FGM could not survive universalization. Kant’s second formulation—the Formula of Humanity—demands that we treat persons always as ends in themselves, never merely as means (Barnes, n.d.). FGM fails this test decisively. The child’s body is used as a means to satisfy adult beliefs about purity, marriageability, or religious duty. Her future capacity for sexual autonomy, her physical health, and her psychological wellbeing are sacrificed on the altar of cultural conformity. She is not treated as an end; she is treated as an instrument.

A supplementary analysis using John Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance reinforces this conclusion. If rational agents were designing a society without knowing what position they would occupy—without knowing their sex, their culture, or their family—none would consent to a system where they might be subjected to irreversible genital harm as a child. The practice survives only because those who impose it know they will never be its victims.

Two objections deserve consideration. First, the cultural imperialism objection: Who are we to impose our values on other societies? This concern is legitimate, as history is replete with powerful nations using moral pretexts to dominate weaker ones. However, the difficulty of applying a principle correctly does not invalidate the principle itself. There must be some baseline of human dignity—a moral floor—below which no cultural practice is protected. Prohibitions against torturing children are not cultural imperialism; they are preconditions for any society that claims to respect human beings. Second, the slippery slope objection: If we condemn FGM, must we also condemn male circumcision, ear piercing, or religious education? The answer lies in distinguishing severity, reversibility, and consent. Ear piercings heal. Religious ideas can be re-evaluated when the child matures. FGM cannot be undone. The bright line is irreversible physical harm inflicted on a person incapable of consent.

I find this framework clarifying for my own life as a father. My four-year-old daughter attends a church-run preschool—the only affordable option in our area. She is learning valuable skills, but she is also being taught to pray, to believe in God and angels, and to accept claims I do not believe are true. I am a secular atheist, and I worry about exposing her to a belief system she cannot yet critically evaluate. Am I complicit in a smaller-scale version of the imposition I condemn? I have concluded that the situations are not equivalent. The ideas she encounters at preschool are reversible. She will grow up with a father who models critical thinking, who will teach her to ask questions and evaluate evidence. She is not being harmed; she is being exposed to ideas she will one day have the tools to accept or reject. The difference between religious preschool and FGM is not merely one of degree—it is the difference between a belief that can be unlearned and a body that cannot be restored.

Kant reminds us that moral worth lies not in consequences but in treating persons with the dignity they deserve. Children deserve to reach adulthood with their bodies intact and their capacity for autonomous choice preserved. When cultural practices violate that principle, intervention is not imperialism—it is the defense of human dignity itself.

References

Barnes, E. (n.d.). Kantian ethics. California State University, Sacramento. https://web.archive.org/web/20210518060451/https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm

Philosophy Basics. (n.d.). Moral absolutism. https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html

World Health Organization. (2024, January 31). Female genital mutilation. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation