Should we prevent non-therapeutic mutilation and extreme body modification?

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Philosophy of the body

Background:

• Non-therapeutic body modifications, such as tongue splitting, branding, and flesh stapling, are increasingly practiced.
• These practices are often viewed as 'aberrations' and face calls for prohibition.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate common arguments used to justify banning non-therapeutic body modifications.
• To explore the ethical and philosophical underpinnings of objections to voluntary mutilation.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of ethical arguments against body modification.
• Critique of pathologization, Kantian duties to oneself, and the irrationality objection.

Main Results:

• The common pathologization of body modifications is found to be wanting.
• Kantian arguments regarding duties to oneself do not convincingly support a ban.
• The objection from irrationality is also deemed insufficient grounds for prohibition.

Conclusions:

• There is no convincing ethical or philosophical support for prohibiting voluntary non-therapeutic mutilations.
• Individual autonomy in body modification choices should be respected in the absence of harm.