Due to the repetitiveness and fairly confusing explanations, there are at least three arguments found in order to support the main idea. The first one is both critiques agree that human rights are and should not be universal. Both are criticizing the practice of International Human Rights however the relativist will further dispute on both theory and practice of International Human Rights. Feminist stresses that the practice of universality is still poor as only men’s right seems to be protected. Women have not been included in ‘human’ of human rights.
The feminist and cultural relativist have the same critique but different goal. Feminists do not refute the theory that the international human rights is universal, but feminism critique about the practice of international human right, while Cultural relativist critique both the theory and practical of International Human Rights. Feminists argue that the universality that been said in the International Human Rights have not been realized in daily life practices, Feminism assumed that the right only owned and protect the men. Feminism felt like women are not the part of “human” category that stated in the Human Rights. Feminism believes that if the international human rights are truly universal, then the rights is not only for men but also for women which means there must be the right guarantee for women and the rule for their protection.
In addition, cultural relativism sees universal human rights as insensitive to cultural differences and an instrument of oppression itself. Some developing states view human rights as a new form of Western imperialism. They argue that human rights should be more `culture-relative` rather than universal. On the other hand, universalism maintains that human rights are universal and inherent in every individual, irrespective of culture, race, ethnicity, gender, age and so on. Further, according to universalism, rights are absolute and inalienable.
And also feminists argue that women should be included in the human rights protection system. In simple way, feminists say that they want to be treated equally with men on physically, thoughts, and workplace. In fact, it is argued that feminism and cultural relativism actually have many similarities, and if the two groups could see their differences, together they could provide a valuable critique of dominant human rights discourse. If cultural relativists and feminists stopped wasting energy on issues on which they are opposed and focused instead on issues they have in common, they could develop a powerful constructive human rights
It has gathered more importance after the Second World War period, after the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Human rights are moral principles, which describe certain standards of human behavior, and are protected as legal rights. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being the same for everyone. They require empathy and impose an obligation on every person to respect the human rights of everyone around them. The confusing question for many of whether there’s a difference between human rights and women rights is answered differently between women and men.
This journal begins by expressing the two fundamental evaluates from social relativist and women 's activist. Social relativist contends that the wellspring of human rights is culture and since culture is one as well as various, therefore human rights are non-general. Then the women 's activist would contend that human rights holder allude to men and not ladies, and its practice and execution, sexual orientation balance, flexibility of ladies, and separation of ladies is not organized in global society. With a specific end goal to address these evaluates, the strategy Reitman utilized is research articles, composing from Jack Donelly, and looks at the issues and civil arguments issued with regards to two United Nation gatherings and one tradition identified with the investigates which are International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, and
The approach states that a human right is not qualified by any legal instrument or any institution. The moral theories focus on the universality of human rights despite our various backgrounds such as race, culture, religion or geographical boundaries. They further elaborate that human beings owe each other respect that cannot only be defined by international human rights instruments but by the fact that one is human. Jerome Shestack; in his paper ‘Philosophical foundations of Human rights’, explain theology as a source of human rights. He said that Theology states that human rights stem from a higher law than the state, The Supreme being.
Humanists mean that our social instincts lays the foundation of morality and that they are a natural part of humanity. Ideas such as freedom, justice, happiness, equality, fairness are all seen as human inventions, that we must strive to live up to. Do all people have equal value? Because the freedom of choice contribute to human happiness, humanists value individual freedom. In the same way, humanists oppose racism, sexism, torture, unfair imprisonment, persecution because of beliefs and inequalities in wealth and education or everything that stand in the way of human welfare, development and progress.
Moral philosophers were challenged by seeking answer to questions as what is the ground and scope of human rights, in which way human rights ground action and what is universality from the perspective of the (supposed) rights holders. Beitz claims that human rights are rather emergent political practice and argues that the source of human rights is not in natural rights but in social justice. According to Beitz’s social justice model, “human rights are entitlements to the satisfaction of various human interests that would be guaranteed to members of a group by principles of social justice” . He contests natural rights theory because it narrows human rights only to those to personal security. Donnelly rejects this theory because it is basically needless – it is “not simpler, not clearer, and it fails to provide a more comprehensive or less contentious set of principles by which to derive a list of human rights – it is in conflict with existing international principles”
The definition of Human Rights varies from culture to culture. Most generally your basic human rights are considered to be the ones given to you at birth that can (or should) never be taken away; such as the right to shelter, food, and personal safety. However, after you start to go deeper into the concept of Human rights, there are clearly many different interpretations, which inevitably results in arguments on whether the concept of Human Rights is unachievable. Both the argument for and against the ideal that Human Rights are possible can be justified. Firstly, one can argue that Human Rights are a viable concept.