Do you think that human rights should be seen as a universal or culturally-relative phenomenon? Human rights are the basic freedoms, protection and restrictions that belong to all human beings regardless of gender, nationality, religion, age or race. The question on whether human rights should be the same in all over the world or not has been raised ever since the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDCR) in 1948[2]. The debate between the human rights universalists and relativists is still going on today and the clear conclusion can still be quite far away, but we are going to analyze them and decide whether which is the best way of looking at human rights.
There are two ways that people see human rights; universal
…show more content…
Universal human rights can be applied to anyone in anywhere[3]. Everyone would be treated equally no matter where they are, thus this form of human rights can help providing a fair treatment for prisoners of wars and migrants[2]. Universalism can be very helpful in this modern time because people are constantly moving from one place to another due to the advance in technology and transportation[3]. Universality of human rights might be a convenient way of creating international peace, but it is still greatly challenged by cultural …show more content…
Because we are living in the age of globalization and technological advancement, cultural differences will eventually lose its significance as time goes by[3]. The other disadvantage is that not everyone would agree to every traditions that they are born in. In some culture, people are able to kill, keep a slave or restrict some of the basic human rights such as the right to democracy, public assembly, privacy and freedom of speech. Some people in the culture would have to be forced to accept the tradition even if they disagree with it but have to just because they were born in that particular society[6]. Even though relativism can satisfy the majority of cultures around the world, its imperfections can still create quite a lot of conflicts.
After looking at the advantages and the disadvantages of both mindsets, I think universalism is a better way to maintain a peaceful world for all because globalization is, and will be, continuing to occur as our world develops. Every cultures will have more ideas and values going out and coming in as international communication is becoming easier. People from every cultures will be moving around everywhere and no society would only contain their own members, but some immigrants as well. By having human
(104-105). Seeing that there is still indifference in the world and seeing that after many years people are still fighting for their rights, It can be presumed that Humans have not changed. To conclude, human rights cannot be actualized for every person because of the lack of compassion people have for others. To achieve human rights for all people, everyone would need to understand one another and accept each other’s differences.
In today's world, human rights still face many challenges and problems. There are still political systems and behaviors in the world that do not respect human rights, such as dictatorial regimes, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, poverty, hunger, and other issues. In addition, new technology and globalization trends have brought new challenges to human rights protection, such as privacy protection, digital rights, and other
These human rights 'instruments', as they are called, have fixed how many rights apply to particular groups of human beings such as women or children. They have also come up with new ideas that were not part of the thinking of those who first drafted the Universal Declaration. The link between human rights and other pillars is clearly evident all the way through the UDHR. First, it allows, in the Preamble, that the credit of the unchallengeable rights of all people is the groundwork of freedom, justice and peace across the world. Secondly, it expands the UN Charter’s stated purpose of encouraging growth by giving economic, social and cultural rights the in the same degree of safety that an individual finds for civil and political rights (Marshall
The two documents that will be viewed is the United States’ Declaration of Independence and France’s Declaration of the Rights of Men and Citizen on what they are, what they do, and how they compare. Both are very important historical documents that molded France and the United States into the countries they are today. Learning about these documents is just learning more about how our home countries came to be and have achieved their greatness. The Declaration of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen stands for the common people’s freedom such as religion, speech, and equality.
In this prompt the argument that Morality exists is irrelevant, contrary to our thoughts and beliefs. Everyone follows a set of moral rules. Ethical relativists disagree with this belief because, they believe that morals are distinctive from each individual culture. These relativists as described are mixing up moral and cultural distinctions, or are simply not willing to completely understanding the cultures they are standing up for. There are two different types of relativism Ethical, and Cultural, that rely upon the argument of cultural differences, which have flaws that make the argument unsound.
Imposition on Human Rights The modern conception of civil liberties involves a long list of individual rights which include the right to liberty and security of person, rights to property and privacy, right to a fair trial and the rights to free speech. These civil and political rights are now framed as “human rights” and are protected by numerous international treaties. Freedom of movement is also broadly recognised in international law and bills of rights. Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within borders of each state.
Correspondingly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights depend on dignity, equality and mutual respect – regardless of your nationality, your religion or your beliefs. Your rights are tied in with being dealt with reasonably and treating others decently, and being able to make on decisions about your own life. These fundamental human rights are: Universal; They have a place with every one of us; They can't be detracted from us, Indivisible and independent Governments should not have the capacity to choose
Therefore, different cultures with result in different moral codes. In that case, people should see matters from many aspects instead of having a general truth as the standard. A second reason why cultural relativism has a more logical way of reasoning is because it teaches us to keep in an open mind. This can be seen from the fact that people should respect and tolerate other’s culture since there is no universal truth that holds for all people. Taken together, these two arguments demonstrate the logical way reasoning of cultural relativism and highlight the advantage of the cultural relativism
Human rights were initiated for the protection of the basic civil and political liberties in the general public. In the United Kingdom the Human Rights Act of 1998 came into force in October 2000. The aim of the HRA in the UK was to provide further legal effect to the basic rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. The rights contained in the HRA not only affect essential matters of life and death, but also issues that occur in people 's daily life. Considering the broad range of basic rights covered, it is not astonishing that the HRA is viewed as one of the most significant segments of legislation ever passed in the UK.
In other words, “right” or “wrong” are culture specific, what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality that exist, no one has the right to judge another societies custom (Ess, 2009). Cultural Relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not absolute. What makes up right and wrong is determined solely by individual or the society (Ess, 2009). Since the truth is not object, there can be no standards which applies to all cultures.
Introduction Human rights are rights that are entitled to every individual regardless of nationality and citizenship as it is inherent, inalienable, and universal. The presence of basic human rights are vital in upholding a civilized society. The idea of having individual rights and freedom is not a new concept in Britain, in fact it has very deep roots. History shows landmark advancements such as Magna Carta 1215, Habeas Corpus Act 1679, and Bill of Rights and Claim of Rights 1689 all had important roles in protecting citizen’s rights.
“Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critique of International Human Rights- Friends or Foes?” The journal, “Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critique of International Human Rights- Friends or Foes?” by Oonagh Reitman have the aim to know deeper about the two critiques towards the universal Human Rights by the two major theory, which are the Cultural Relativism and Feminism, how they see the universal Human Rights theory. The Journal address for the workshop discussion matter regarding to the similarities on critique of International human rights that made by the Cultural relativist and the feminist. “ Human Rights is the right that given and held by human simply because they are human, and it does not classified nor held by certain groups or not the subject to variation in culture”(Donnelly 1989: 109-110) From the introduction in the journal, the writer defines how the feminist and the cultural relativist express their idea of Universal human rights. The idea of Universal human rights from Donnelly were being reserve by Relativist, they argue that the human rights itself root from culture and due to the variation of culture, making the human rights not universal.
Cultural relativism has a variety of definitions, but the main idea is that a universal code of ethics does not exist--it varies culture to culture. Rachel’s examines cultural relativism in “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” and argues that there are commonalities of ethics throughout every culture. Rachels sections off his argument to better explain what they believe. In this piece, they argue that cultural relativism is not a proper theory. They argue that it has many major flaws, but they acknowledge that parts of theory have some truth to it.
Globalization has indeed impacted human rights worldwide; however as to whether the impact is negative or positive depends on which part of the world one finds him/herself. “Human Right” by definition “is the right which is believed to belong to every person”. The central idea of globalization is for businesses to develop international influence and operate on an international scale. Globalization has given people the right to information. Thanks to globalization technology has travelled all over the world to help people have easy access to information.
Human rights are founded on respect for the dignity and worth of each person. 2. Human rights are universal meaning that they are applied equally and without discrimination to all peoples. 3. Human rights are inalienable, in that no one can have his or her human rights taken away other than in specific situations.