How do critics use harm and benefit as standards for evaluating female genital mutilation?

Critics of ethical relativism argue that moral judgments can be made by evaluating whether a practice works to the advantage or disadvantage of the people within a culture, rather than relying solely on local social codes.1

When applying this standard to female genital mutilation (FGC), critics contend that the practice causes significant physical and psychological harm, including severe pain, infection, complications during childbirth, and potential death. Because these consequences objectively disadvantage the health and well-being of those subjected to the procedure, critics argue that this provides a universal, culture-neutral basis for judging the practice as morally wrong, regardless of whether it is accepted or traditional within a specific society.231

By prioritizing the fundamental ethical principle of protecting individuals from unnecessary harm, critics reject the relativist claim that such customs are immune to external moral evaluation. This approach asserts that the well-being of individuals serves as a standard that transcends local cultural variations.12