The Universal Nature of Human Rights - Assignment Example

The universal nature of human rights The universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 is the leading treatise on human rights. The declaration has received much criticism and praise since its inception. The most outstanding criticism of the universal declaration challenges the universality of human rights. The view is that some, if not most, of the provisions in the declaration stems from the customs of the western world. This, therefore, makes human rights inapplicable in and incompatible with other cultures. Human rights are a result of successive struggles in the west. This issue creates a problem in relating cultural rights and the universal nature of human rights. The tension between the two and the concept of cultural relativism are the central elements in contesting the universal nature of human rights. In this respect, this paper will discuss the universal nature of human rights.1 The question of whether human rights are universal is dependent on the interpretation of what is right and to what extent these rights are acceptable to all. Attempting to make human rights universal in a world with diverse and conflicting cultures becomes problematic. There are, however, several view points that consider human rights universal in nature. In the discussion of the universality of human rights it is imperative to distinguish between substantive and conceptual universality. Substantive universality follows that human rights are rights that an individual has because they are human. These rights are equal since either we are or are not human equally. Human rights are alienable rights since being human is an alienable fact that cannot be lost. Human rights are, therefore, universal because they are held universally. In contrast, conceptual universality provides that human rights are held equally by all. Human rights are universal and reliant on national implementation of the universally recognized human rights. Human rights are considered universal because most cultures and societies have always practiced human rights in some way. These societies manifest concepts of human rights. Human rights are essential in realizing social values in society. The idea of human rights touches on the relationship between the state and its citizens. This relationship includes the status and duties of individuals in relation to the state. Different states, however, have different conceptions of human rights and hence different attitudes towards human rights.2 Human rights are considered to be the most effective response to the globalization of threats to human dignity. These rights ensure that there is human dignity in society through functional universality. This functional universality is based on human rights providing remedies for systematic threats to human dignity. This function is achieved in individuals of all cultures around the world. Protection of human rights by states is a precondition for state legitimacy. Human rights are inescapable when a state desires legitimate recognition. This argument gives rise to the international legal universality of human rights. Human rights can be traced to a number of comprehensive doctrines such as natural law. Comprehensive doctrines and cultures are neither compatible nor incompatible with human rights. Nothing in any culture prevents it from endorsing human rights. Moral equality of human rights is readily endorsed in different regions of the world. The variety in social practices provides for the concept of moral equality of humans. The convergence of these cultures in recognizing moral equality renders human rights universal.3 Human rights are founded on the belief of rights as the worth of individuality and as entitlements. Human rights are founded on individual worth as contrasted to communitarian. Human rights also apply anywhere and anytime and, as such, they are universal and equal. These rights apply to all individuals since they are meant to protect human dignity which is inherent in every human being. Because all human beings have a common dignity and nature, they are entitled to human rights. The individual and universal assumption of human rights is faced with several challenges. The most significant of these is the concept of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism follows that human rights cannot be considered universal since different cultures have different moral beliefs. Central to this argument is the idea that some cultures do not value individualism. The most noteworthy is that Asian and Islamic cultures are different from the Western culture and therefore human rights cannot be considered universal. Despite these challenges, it is possible for human rights to exist even with cultural relativism. According to Donelly, cultural relativism can assume two positions. These are radical universalism and radical cultural relativism. Radical cultural relativism views culture as the primary source of validity of moral rights. In this context, internal judgment overrides other interests. Radical universalism, on the other hand, provides that culture is irrelevant in assessing the validity of moral rights. This view considers external judgment in the assessment of moral rights. The distinction between the two is helpful in the evaluation of relativity.4 Strong cultural relativism disagrees with the universality of human rights in respect to different cultural values. Strong cultural relativism believes that culture is the fundamental source of any moral right. This position follows that rights are determined by culture but the universality of human rights provides a check on excess relativism. Strong cultural relativism should be distinguished from radical cultural relativism. In contrast to strong cultural relativism, radical relativism provides that culture is the only source of moral rights. Strong cultural relativism, however, may accept some human rights as universal.5 Weak cultural relativism provides the view that culture may be an essential source of moral rights. This is evident in the local variation of human rights. These variations are necessary because human nature is culturally relative. Human nature is a result of unique social practices and social upbringing. This means that people are affected by cultural values and they in turn develop some personalities based on social upbringing. The different personalities in different cultures may give rise to conflicting understanding of human rights. Weak cultural relativism provides a middle ground where cultural variations do not override human rights.6 Human rights provide protection against oppression and the use of power to interfere with people. Human rights are geared mainly to the misuse of power by the state against citizens. Human rights provide an avenue for challenging power and have a global appeal. A greater appeal for human rights arises when the human rights are more inclusive and the threats to human rights are more general. This appeal gives legitimacy to human rights which increases acceptance. Because human rights are becoming more inclusive and due to the general nature of threats addressed by these rights, their appeal will continue to expand to different cultures around the world. Human rights are considered legitimate because they have a global appeal. The global appeal of human rights, therefore, indicates the universality of these rights.7 Donnely however argues that human rights are not considered legitimate because they are universal. He points out that its legitimacy arises from the types of universality. In his argument he notes that human rights posses international legal universality since states accept them as binding. This does not make human rights binding due to universality. With respect to functional universality, human rights perform some functions in different places. International legal universality is relative to a particular time and holds across a particular universe.8 The debate on the universality of human rights centers on cultural relativism. The question in this context is how can human rights be universal in a world that has diverse cultures? The cultural relativism perspective is that human values vary according to cultural views. In view of cultural relativism, it is noteworthy that human rights are not universal but rather culturally relative. The extreme relativism, however, threatens the effectiveness of human rights. This view is founded on the notion that if state compliance with human rights is governed by cultural tradition, then there would be a widespread abuse and disregard of human rights. Human nature is culturally relative and this makes human rights relative because they are based on human nature. Culture can influence the presence or lack of it in many aspects of human nature. The effect of culture in forming human nature makes different cultures diverse. This diversity necessitates allowance of variations in human rights. However, if all rights are formed as a result of cultural norms, then no rights would exist. Relativist arguments oppose the view that human rights are universal. Human rights try to preserve difference in cultures, religion and languages.9 As seen in this discussion, there is an apparent tension between the concept of cultural relativism and the universal nature of human rights. The tension arises due to human nature, which is shaped by culture. There is radical cultural relativism which makes it difficult to reconcile human rights with universality. Weak cultural relativism, on the other hand, allows for variation of human rights to fit their local context. Human values are fundamental and all humans have these values in common. Human rights are meant to protect these values which make its mandate universal. Bibliography Donnelly J, Human Rights: Both Universal and Relative (A Reply To Michael Goodhart) (2008) 30 Human Rights Quarterly Donnelly J, The Relative Universality of Human Rights (2007) 29 Human Rights Quarterly Goodhart M, Neither Relative Nor Universal: A Response To Donnelly (2008) 30 Human Rights Quarterly Read More