Women have not been included in ‘human’ of human rights. Reitman provides supporting idea from the feminist campaign “Women’s Right as Human Rights”. In the other hand relativist believes that human rights are imbued by culture which is now dominated the international community. Human rights are viewed as modern form of imperialism of Western value. Therefore the similarities exists on how both critiques’ perception on the image 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.
: This is one the main points of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism considers cultures and their social codes different and thus forbids one to criticise. This prevents us from criticizing even the less tolerable practices like slavery , female infanticide, or any such practices. In a way cultural relativism provides immunity to such intolerable practices. 2) The legitimacy or validity of any action could be measured by consulting the standards of our society.
Ethical relativism or also known as moral relativism denies that moral values and norms are objective or universal and declares that there is no absolute truth. The truth is relative to the subject and can differ from person to person and from society to society. Ethical relativism states that our morals and
They find that there are not only differences among people; it is of no doubt that human beings share a large number of common qualities. They believe in human rights, that is, “rights that belong to an individual or group of individuals simply for being human” (Weston 2014). Furthermore, the Unite Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted a document Universal Declaration of Human Rights; this document was written “for fundamental freedom for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion” (Encyclopedia Britannica 2010, 657). The universal human rights theory declines cultural relativism because it sets unified rules for all human beings. Therefore, a heated discussion has begun in academic circle.
And also, the flagrant postulation that the western race and culture is superior to other race and culture. However, the contention about the universality of human rights are in two terms which are “universalism“ and “relativism“ which seem to build a pair of two contrary terms. The counterpart for the first postulation is that human right are “particular” and “absolute” they belief that human right is inherent and inure in the individual by virtue of being a human being , while the second postulators finds the reasons for this misconception in the assumption that universalism can only be legitimated by absolute justification by various culture and that a
To quote Clyde Kluckhohn, “Every culture has a concept of murder”. Apart from this, relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because it ultimately denies that there is such a thing as wrong - doing. Conclusion: Cultural Relativism clearly signifies the idea that every culture’s moral beliefs and rituals are no more better or worse than anything else’s. Every culture has its own beliefs and ideologies that are quite different from one another. When you call yourself an Indian, or a Muslim, or a Christian, or a European, or anything else, you are being violent and intolerant.
Debates on cultural diversities and universal human rights tends to go into a complete dichotomy, that is either the acceptance of universality of human rights, or of the subjectivity of cultural values. Even though, proposes for considering cultural values has increasingly come to the foreground. However, the disputes on the resolution of respecting traditional values indicate the unsolved cultural complexities which may support or hinder the practice of the international human rights at the local level. Since 1990, debates on to what extent cultural diversity impacts on the universality human rights, so to its implementation. According to Naʻīm, “The central issue in this debate is whether looking at human rights from the various cultural
This journal article, “Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes?” by Oonagh Reitman seeks to rouse discussion about the similarities between two critiques of universal human rights: cultural relativists and feminists, despite the antagonistic position both groups tend to take against each other. In the beginning, he lays out the basis of critique of international human rights by each camp. Cultural relativists argue that the universal human rights which are earned simply ‘by virtue of being human’ (Donnelly in Reitman 1997, 100) are insensitive to the diversity of culture. Feminists, on the other hand, criticize that universal human rights guarantee only men’s rights and that ‘gender equality and freedom from discrimination for women is given a low priority in the international arena’ (Reitman 1997, 100). Reitman then examines the combative relationship between the two groups.
There should be a feeling reciprocity in accepting the values and norms between the two different cultures. So the acceptance of change should be both-ways. This approach is based on the belief that, there is no doubt that every culture is different in its own way but still they have some basics interests, concerns, qualities, traits and values that can provide a common ground for implication of universal human rights. Intracultural Dialogue: It means dialogue within the culture. In this way, there will be a change within the culture itself further making it flexible enough to provide space to accommodate the values of universal human rights.