The Question of Relativism

Abstract

Appeals to moral relativism have posed a significant challenge to the human rights construct in its brief history. Relativism has been triumphed effectively by apologists for patriarchal ideology to suggest that the rights construct (particularly as applied to women) is an inappropriate (even colonialist) intrusion into the theological integrity of religious communities, who should enjoy a human right to free religious practice. Relativists’ arguments for the superiority of their moral/ethical codes, the history and immutability of their traditions, and their source in the divine, are both powerful and effective. On these grounds governments or communities have exempted themselves from adhering to some or all rights categories. When relativist claims are made on the grounds of religion (as opposed to culture or to morals generally) the challenge is especially potent because of appeals to divine will and the force of claims to religious freedom. Relativism regarding gender is also especially potent. As shown in the previous chapter, factions within various religions argue that women are a different category of person from men and so in certain circumstances are required to have different criteria for rights enjoyment. At their worst, claims for religious relativism may further compromise women’s rights if rights discourse is employed by communities to actually substantiate instances of gender discrimination.

It is a small matter to starve to death, but a large matter to lose one’s virtue.

a Confucian aphorism of Zhu Xi, supporting

a ban on widow remarriage