Various approaches have been taken to respond to questions of human rights’ universality, that they are ‘by definition universal and everyone has exactly the same rights, no exceptions.’ While not a single answer has been agreed upon, this essay will argue that human rights are universal in principle, yet relativist interpretations may affect the perception and adoption of human rights in different contexts. There will be three main sections. The first section addresses the concept of human rights exploring the process of ideas’ formulation and development. The next part mainly draws on Jack Donnelly’s article on relative universality, and observes Asian values, taking into account both strengths and weaknesses of the idea. As a concluding …show more content…
A study by Jack Donnelly (2007) provides through and extensive descriptions about different approaches to interpreting universalities and the importance of relating relativism into the discourse. There is a certain coherence between the points aroused above and Donnelly’s findings, largely since his rejection of anthropological and ontological universality indicates that human rights as analytical framework has been alien to anthropological interpretations (Donnelly, 2007: 284-286) and that there is no single objective or fixed criterion for understanding human rights (292-293). In addressing the relativism more specifically, he uses the three-tiered schema to illustrate that the basic concept of human rights is universal, whereas particular rights concepts need to consider relativity to enable multiple conceptions and implementation, or practices (Donnelly, 2007: 298-301; Goodhart, 2008: 185). This suggests, without making legal positivist or reductionist assumptions, that universality is a fundamental tenet of human rights, yet its materialisation may yield different results depending on relevant …show more content…
Firstly, while the term implies the existence somewhat uniform features of Asian socio-political contexts that affects human rights in a certain way, arguments using Asian values tend to appeal substantially to contextual particularities when there is “such a marked diversity among Asian nations”, thereby rejecting the principle of universality at extreme (Chan, 1995: 31-32; Ghai, 1995: 64). Secondly, there is a criticism against the Asian relativist perspective that it reflects mostly official, or national, views, which marginalised voices remain unheard (Ghai, 1995: 63). Ghai (1995: 56) notes that the formulation of ‘official’ Asian positions in human rights discourses has largely been a response to the Western ideas, hence universalist in nature. Therefore, the claim that “it is … the violators of human rights principles and their advocates who invoke the relativist argument against the principle of universality” is plausible and needs to be addressed (Ramcharan et al., 1998:
After the initial remarks, the author presents the four myths by setting out the works of several scholars. Marks identifies the first myth as “The Myth of Presumptive Universality”. She presents Joseph Raz’s views that we have human rights not because we are human, but because those rights simply exist. Raz also claims that the rights that we have adopted are biased and do not respect the cultural diversity of the world. The scholar claims that if rights were truly universal then we should’ve had a higher
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
Mahoney, Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? 12 Human Rights Law Journal 1, 5( 1998)
Jack Donnelly, Alison D. Renteln, and Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim all have different opinions when it comes to human rights and the exact way we should go about discussing human rights. The debate between the scholars and me come from the debate between the two principles of Liberal Universalism and Cultural Relativism. In my own opinion, I believe that it discussing human rights has to involve both theories and a cross-cultural discussion between us all so that we can come to an agreement when looking for a solution in certain cases.
Furthermore, Seyla Benhabib, a Turkish-American philosopher and Professor of Political Science at Yale University, combats the claim of scholars, like Mohanty, that universalism is ethnocentric. While some intellectuals believe that universalism is a concept that the West has internationally promoted without considering other cultures that may differ from the West, Benhabib strongly disagrees. First, Benhabib puts forth the idea that other cultures have been and are compatible with the West. Like Nussbaum, she believes that our cultures are not as different as we have come to believe. She states that universal legal principles have been created as a product of all cultures in all areas of the world feeding off one another. Those who believe
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
Though the modern concept of human rights is originated from the Western world, it is believed to be a universal principle regardless of cultures. Meanwhile, people particularly concern the compatibility of human rights and Confucianism, which has a long history and still exerts influences in East Asia. It also poses a question to whether a traditional thinking still has its values in the modern context.
On December 10th in 1948, the general assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement of all people and all nations…to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
While on one hand there is a growing consensus that human rights are universal on the other exist critics who fiercely oppose the idea. Of the many questions posed by critics revolve around the world’s pluri-cultural and multipolarity nature and whether anything in such a situation can be really universal.
Rights have been and continue to be violated across the world on both massive and miniscule scales. With rights violations being a constant issue, it is necessary, although it may be difficult, to determine which violations are human rights violations. Two aspects are crucial in this process: universality and paramountcy. Although practicability is also set forth as a criterion by Maurice Cranston, it is not as crucial when determining which acts violate human rights, or when they came into existence. This is due to the fact that when trying to distinguish between rights and human rights, almost all rights, not just specifically human rights, can, in some way, be practicable. For this reason, practicability, for the purpose of this essay, is
ABSTRACT: This paper defends the claim that the contemporary canon of human rights forms an indivisible and interdependent system of norms against both "Western" and "Asian" critics who have asserted exceptionalist or selectivist counterclaims. After providing a formal definition of human rights, I argue that the set of particular human rights that comprises the contemporary canon represents an ethical-legal paradigm which functions as an implicit theory of human oppression. On this view, human rights originate as normative responses to particular historical experiences of oppression. Since historically known experiences of oppression have resulted from practices that function as parts of systems of domination, normative responses to these practices have sought to disarm and dismantle such systems by depriving potential oppressors of the techniques which enable them to maintain their domination. Therefore, human rights norms form a systematic and interdependent whole because only as parts of a system can they function as effective means for combatting oppression and domination.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
The universal declaration of human rights declared that all people have equal rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, language, culture, birth status, national origin, or opinion. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups. (ohchr.org) The universality of human rights is a concept that allows everyone to have the same basic human rights no matter where the location. If that concept is true then why are people being tortured and ostracized. Why are people still afraid of going against their leaders, fearing that they will be found and killed. It is because some leaders