This essay describes the author's change of approach to the comparative study of religious ethics from the one contained in a book on the subject, published in 1978. The change resulted from interactions with Abdulaziz Sachedina, the noted scholar of Islam, demonstrating the importance of comparing different ethical systems in reference to global topics like human rights, particularly the right to freedom of conscience.

In "transitional societies" like South Africa and Bosnia, which are currently moving from authoritarianism, and often violent repression, to democracy, questions arise about the appropriate way to deal with serious human rights offenders.

Though responses to Stout's book, "Democracy and Tradition," have touched on his discussion of rights, none has comprehensively examined his position on the subject. Having endorsed several objections Stout raises against some influential views on democracy and rights, this article proceeds to criticize Stout's description and theoretical account of the natural and human rights traditions. The central argument is that Stout cannot successfully both affirm the traditions and adhere to his account.

ABSTRACTThough responses to Stout's book, Democracy and Tradition, have touched on his discussion of rights, none has comprehensively examined his position on the subject. Having endorsed several objections Stout raises against some influential views on democracy and rights, this article proceeds to criticize Stout's description and theoretical account of the natural and human rights traditions. The central argument is that Stout cannot successfully both affirm the traditions and adhere to his account.

In reviewing five edited collections and one monograph from the 1990s, the article summarizes the present status of the "human rights revolution" that was signaled by the adoption in 1948 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". It goes on to elaborate and evaluate some of the attempts contained in these books to deal with theoretical and practical controversies surrounding the subject of human rights, particularly the discussion of what to make of "cultural relativism" as far as human rights are (...) concerned. Finally, the article summarizes some recent thinking and research on a neglected area, namely compliance with human rights standards protecting "freedom of religion or belief.". (shrink)

Little raises many questions of international legality in addressing the finer concepts of peace enforcing, peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peace building. He accentuates the rule of law, democracy, and human rights as foundations for each of these stages towards a Just Peace. Looking towards collectively accepted international treaties for a concept of justice, Little taps into a notion of legal validity that is at least partially composed of a legitimacy that emanates from the people themselves. Although there are valid reasons for (...) questioning who has been allowed to participate in the process developing international law, protecting the human rights of all, and labelling it justice certainly does not seem to create an untenable starting point. In fact, this approach that looks to protect the rights of all can be quite constructive because, ultimately, it is the people involved in a conflict who will determine whether a peace is just, and therefore lasting. (shrink)

This essay responds to some of the criticisms leveled against Little and Twiss, Comparative Religious Ethics. The general approach and some of the detailed conclusions are defended against those who charge, on the one hand, that the book lacks sufficient theoretical sweep, and, on the other, that its central concepts and categories impede sensitive understanding of particular religious traditions. An effort is made to clarify and support a basic assumption of the book (and, the authors believe, of all comparative work): (...) the importance of the investigator's cultural location in shaping the comparative enterprise. (shrink)

In this analysis of Reinhold Niebuhr's 1932 classic Moral Man, Little reviews some of the book's fundamental conclusions. He observes that, when moral language is used in international politics without self-criticism, it diverts attention from the real motives of the statesmen who use it.

This essay provides an exposition and critical assessment of Weber's typology of modes of practical reasoning and substitutes for practical reasoning, as well as of his definitions of the terms "ethics" and "religion." It then examines the application of these elements of "the sociology of rationalism" to religious systems of ethics. The author points out a number of difficulties in Weber's account, but concludes by insisting that it contains insights that are indispensable for the comparative study of religious ethics.