Blog Post #4 - Brooke Wallace

Are Human Rights Really Universal? Particularism Through a Cultural Relativist Lens

The term “human rights” encompasses a wide variety of rights, some of which include: the right to life and freedom, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of expression, and the right to work in just and favorable conditions. Upon its inception, the UDHR has raised significant questions surrounding what human rights are and whether they are universal or culturally relative or a mixture of the two. The connotation of “universal” (which is commonly associated with human rights) is that human rights are “present or occurring everywhere” (Merriam Webster). They apply to all beings by virtue. By definition, it is reasonable to say that human rights are universal, yet there are atrocities and genocide occurring all over the world. However, the reality is that human rights are not totally universal, as human rights in the U.S. and the Western world are not human rights in Rwanda. A journal article written by the Human Rights Quarterly says that “cultural relativity is an undeniable fact” and that “...moral rules and social institutions evidence an astonishing cultural and historical variability. Human rights are compatible with cultural diversity. Cultural differences could have a major impact on the human rights issues that country is dealing with. Therefore, we must take different cultures into consideration when deeming something to be a violation of basic human rights since each situation is different. This can be seen with the concept of cosmopolitanism because we have equal obligation to all human beings. Patriotism and spreading one nation's ideals causes problems and creates divisions at state borders (Shirk Lecture 21).  The Le reading discusses the debate between universalism and cultural relativists and how there should be some reconciliation between the two sides. Interestingly enough, Le states that “individuals involved in the making of the UDHR were cosmopolitans who had international experiences and enjoyed certain privileges in their societies,” (203). She goes on to explain that cosmopolitans and ordinary people do not live in the same world, so they have completely different perspectives on human rights. This suggests that no moral principles can be applied to all cultures or beings since those individuals in power are the ones who decide the precepts of the world (Shirk). These fundamental rights depend on the rights of freedom even though not every country is considered to be “free”. Take, for instance, countries like North Korea, Burma, and Libya who are among the worst abusers of these basic rights and completely ignore the standards. Despite having a global acceptance, these rights differ from country to country. Why does it make sense to assert that they are completely universal if oppression, torture, and atrocities are committed all over the world? Just as cultures are non-homogenous and malleable, human rights must be able to see and adapt to cultural differences. This is why I think that human rights are both relatively universal and culturally relative. The concept of moral particularism ties into my claim of relative universality because it refers to the possibility of moral thought not depending on moral principles. Saying that human rights are both relative and universal means that one culture’s views will not be imposed on another. Yet, America can be perceived as imposing our Western human rights on other cultures; essentially, we have denied other countries their cultural heritage in the past. In an attempt to civilize the world (essentially “westernize” it), they are creating more problems and causing more injustices and human rights problems to arise even in our very own country. Our country does not have the right to impose our culture and social norms on other countries. We can be perceived as denying some countries their cultural heritage. This can be seen through colonialism when colonists wanted to civilize the indigenous native American people. Nhina Le wrote a response to Jack Donnelly’s claim that human rights are of relative universality which means that the rights, correctly appreciated, leave room for cultural, moral, and national particularism or specificity. I completely agree with this standpoint mainly because they are not enforced universally, regardless of possessing these rights universally. It is up to the state to enforce human rights and recognize it. A modern presumption of human rights is that it is not universal, but rather a Western construct. The Western world has historically destroyed cultures and subcultures in spreading Christianity and other Western values; for example, we have broken some old taboos and invented new ones like hate speech and crimes and child labor today. This proves that we need to see human rights almost as a culture within itself. Taking a culturally relative approach, human rights are culturally dependent. “The tension between cultural relativism and universalism need not be destructive. Instead, it can generate new insights that strengthen global and local efforts to bring human rights to life.” It is best to work with people who come from that culture because they bring unique perspectives and experiences to the table. In a rapidly changing world, we have to take cultural diversity into human rights and other issues. Human rights should be developed in ways that are sensitive to particularity: cultural differences.

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/762182

Are Human Rights Universal or Culturally Relative? (bucknell.edu)