(Om)skärningspunkten i en rättighetskonflikt: En kvalitativ textanalys av debatten kring manlig omskärelse

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to build on the current debate on male circumcision and from the two perspectives, consequentialism and non-consequentialism, describe the conflict of rights that exists on the issue and outline a normative conclusion about whether Sweden should ban male circumcision of boys or not. The idea is to clarify how the two sides' approach to the conflicting rights differ on the issue. The perspectives intends to provide further clarity to the arguments and provide a framework to resolve the rights conflict by, which creates more favorable conditions to understand the moral bearing of the arguments in the debate. The survey is conducted as a debate analytical study, conducted by compiling and organizing the arguments for the various positions in the debate. Based on the two theories I conduct an critical analysis in which I examine the extent to which the arguments of each side lives up to the perspectives moral standards. The results show that the prohibition advocates is taking a consequentialistic instrumental entrance angle to the rights conflict. The instrumental entry angle is made clear by the fact that the desired outcome of the interpretation of rights seem to justify the use of them rather than the opposite. I judge it based on my inquiry that the ban opponents ascribe the rights, an inviolable value. My assessment of PTS possible bearing on the argument leads me to conclude that the non-consequentialistic entry angle on the rights conflict gives the anti-prohibitionists right in this case.