The question isn't about me or what I want done. The question is whether or not an act can be objectively/universally immoral.
It cannot. I stated that explicitly.
That's your opinion and what we are debating.
It only matters where it happens. Morality is only local.
Again, if the HARM, according to you, is the basis for declaring FGM to be immoral, and the HARM occurs every time it is performed, then explain how it is not immoral every time it's performed.
I think that is the only thing that matters.
I do not live in Niger. I do not understand why this is an issue for you.
Again, if the harm makes the act immoral, then location, perceived usefulness, laws, etc aren't relevant because the harm exists regardless.
Then I should retract my statement. I rarely talk about an act being immoral, especially in countries I do not live in.
Plato's theory of morality is instructive. No one intentionally does harm. They can be wrong, and educated to change their behavior.
Your statement is correct and you know it is.
Why a behavior is done is as irrelevant as the location BECAUSE the harm is what makes the act immoral.
Why is it important for you to call clitorectomies in Niger immoral?
It is the only important factor.
Again, the question was whether or not there are actions that are objectively and universally immoral.
And I answered in the negative. There are not actions that are objectively and universally immoral.
Yes, you claimed that there are no actions that are universally immoral. Now I'm asking you to defend that position because you said that the harm done to a person is what makes an action. Immoral. So, why would religion, location, usefulness, etc be a factor when the harm is what makes something immoral?
And I retracted that statement.
Yep but You didn't retract it because you actually changed your views. You are retracting it because of politics.
No. "Morality" usually refers to a universal code of behavior. I deny such a thing. Why I talk about ethics, not morality.