Culture and Religion in Human Rights Universality Essay

Introduction

One of the challenges that both the national and international forums face is observing all the human rights. If such forums could perfectly manage this issue, problems such as insecurity, racism, oppression, and injustice among other vices would not exist. As a result, some questions about human rights linger the minds of many people. For example, several scholars pose queries such as, “Can human rights ever be universal?” While a simple “yes” or “no” would do, the response needs an intensive and extensive analysis bearing in mind the various factors that play a crucial role is regarding human rights as global or relative. For this reason, this paper will provide well-researched rejoinder to the above question with the sole focus of unravelling the mystery that has befallen the subject of human rights around the globe. In addition, the paper will also compare the answers by pointing out the factors, for instance, religion and culture and schools of thoughts such as relativism and activism that influence the application of human rights. It concludes that such rights may be viewed as both universal and relative.

The Debate on the Universality of Human Rights

The issue of whether human rights are universal continues to attract debate from various stakeholders. Human rights are the privileges and freedoms, which everyone is entitled to enjoy unjustifiably. Their universality means making them common (accessible) to everyone across the globe. According to Tharoor (2000, para. 3), ‘The philosophical objection asserts essentially that nothing can be universal; that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions…If there is no universal culture, there can be no universal human rights’. Tharoor (2000) argues against the rising ‘Western’ notion that presents human rights as a collective concept while ignoring the diverse elements that play a key role in determining the universality or relativism of such privileges. Hence, depending on the school of thought deployed, human rights may be universal as well as relative if the authorities responsible for their application use moral universalism. Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink (1999) present moral universalism as a concept that encompasses varied principles and values, which are common to all people, irrespective of their social, political, economic, historical, religious, cultural, and intellectual considerations and conditions (Eide 2000).

The Role of Culture and Religion in Influencing the Universality of Human Rights

The universality of human rights depends on the different cultures and traditions. For example, rights that promote the equality of both genders are very controversial. Fagan (2009) asserts that a commitment to the universal legitimacy of human rights is not consistent with the dedication to the principle of respecting cultural diversity. According to Fagan (2009), each community will have its point of view concerning the equality of both genders. Religion also affects the universality of human rights. For example, according to Christians, human rights will not be universal if they are not founded on the values symbolised by God.

Moral universalism is characterised into two – the identity of humans and moral independence. The latter holds that any individual can decide to adopt morality or not depending on the first instinct that comes to him or her. With the help of human moral identity, people can use their morals without seeking influence from the social conditions. These two characteristics of moral universalism make human rights universal since anyone can access morals. Since a vice cannot become a virtue to a different group of people and vice versa, human rights remain universal based on this school of thought. For example, according to Schmitz (2010), murder is evil and punishable by the laws of the United States and in every nation in the world.

Ethical relativism argues against the universality of human rights. It holds that moral judgements could be proven right or wrong depending on a particular ground such as cultural, historical, or personal circumstances. However, none of them has more privileges compared to the other. Hence, the legitimacy or falsehood behind the judgements remains relative to the culture. The relativist concept also holds that the moral principles and values cannot exist, unless the social and cultural conditions determine them (Donnelly 2013). In essence, relativism does not support the universality of human rights because it focuses on concepts that are different from those that advocate the propagation of these rights across the world. While relativists believe in moral diversity, the formation of human rights requires a common moral ground. A relativist is likely to struggle in an attempt to become a strong supporter of human rights. In this case, a conflict of interest may arise. In descriptive relativism, the moral beliefs and practices in a particular place and time differ from those of another, meaning that relativists do not believe in the universality of human rights. Since prescriptive relativism evaluates moral diversity into two elements, negative and positive, prescriptive relativists contradict themselves when they argue that moral diversity can turn a negative action into a positive one. This contraction is in line with Tharoor’s (2000, para. 12) arguments, ‘many of the current objections to the universality of human rights reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramount position of society’.

From the concept of ethnocentricity, one’s culture or ethnic group may be superior to that of another. This concept compares the culture of one ethnic group to that of another with the sole focus of determining the best among them. Since human rights face the challenge of ethnocentricity, they incorporate culturally partial values and ideals from the world’s cultures. For example, in part, human rights may focus on western cultures while at the same time adopting the cultural ideals of the non-western countries. Such a case is likely to lead to the failure of adopting the human rights with beliefs from the non-western cultures in the western countries and vice versa. Therefore, harmonising these cultures is a crucial step towards universalising human rights. Christianity and Islam are universal doctrines on many levels since they have justifiable and equitable grounds for being universal. According to Fagan (2009), similar concepts exist in the universality of human rights.

The Universal Fight for Human Rights

Since almost every nations face injustices and abuses, both relativists and activists of human rights from every part of the world contribute to helping national authorities in fighting such voices in various ways. This situation reveals why humans rights should be viewed as a universal issue. For example, both relativists and activists help in spreading the truth and moral views in line with the cultural concepts of fighting injustice among other vices that trouble the society around the globe. However, although human rights vary, their supporters strive to promote and protect such gaps.

Relativists are advocates of relativism, which holds that there is no valid point of view. Hence, from this school, viewing human rights as universal is a misguided opinion. This group of people believe that absolute truth does not exist because every fact is relative to point of reference such as culture (Tharoor 2000). Different forms of relativism are applicable in diverse situations. For example, in Anthropological Relativism, the researcher uses his or her cultural beliefs to understand those of another society. Here, the disparity brings out the differences between the members of a culture and outsiders. According to Tilley (2000), whereas an insider is culture-specific, an outsider is likely to adopt a neutral view of the new culture because he or she can describe it in relation to his or hers or other cultures. On the other hand, as Mutua (2001) asserts, philosophical Relativism presents the truth of a particular proposition as dependent on the interpretation of the proposition or context of expression. From the two sides, it is evident that human rights cannot be universal.

Some of the must-do activities that require the attention of relativists include addressing issues related to human rights such as the right to life or shelter. According to Moravcsik (2000), they also have the responsibility of handling matters affecting a ‘particular’ category of people such as the violation of children’s rights. From Moravcsik’s (2000) line of thought, such rights differ from one country to another. Hence, declaring human rights a collective phenomenon may compromise the quality of justice that different countries accord to victims. From another perspective, regarding human rights as universal implies that some countries will be required to uphold privileges that do not have any significant impact on their citizens’ life. Tharoor (2000) concurs with this opinion. He claims, ‘some human rights are simply not relevant to their societies—the right, for instance, to political pluralism, the right to paid vacations (always good for a laugh in the sweatshops of the Third World), and, inevitably, the rights of women’ (Tharoor 2000, para. 5).

Human rights activists have a huge responsibility of providing education on various beliefs and human rights. However, they also adopt different strategies in different geographical locations, owing to the diverse cultures, hence demonstrating the relativistic nature of human rights. Being a relativist and a human rights activist could help people understand their cultural beliefs, as well as the rights entitled to them (Langlois 2013). However, it is almost impossible for anyone to balance these two concepts since they have different beliefs that seem to oppose each other, thanks to the lack of universality of human rights.

Conclusion

From the above expositions, it is clear that human rights may be viewed as both universal and relative, depending of the school of thought that one deploys to address them. The fight for the provision of universal human rights is a challenge to almost every nation in the world because of cultural diversity. One of the factors that make the universality of human rights a challenge is the fact that the western nations have cultures that are dissimilar to those of the non-western ones. As a result, trying to apply the human rights using beliefs from the non-western cultures in the western nations and vice versa may prove a daunting task. However, this factor does not rule out the universality of human rights. Harmonising these cultures is the perfect way to universalise these rights, although the move is almost impossible to be accomplished. Hence, countries should be given the liberty to uphold rights, which contribute to better livers of their respective citizenry.

References

Donnelly, J 2013, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Eide, A 2000, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights, pp.9-36. Web.

Fagan, A 2009, Human Rights: Confronting Myths and Misunderstandings, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, England.

Langlois, A 2013, Normative and Theoretical Foundations of Human Rights, OUP, Oxford.

Moravcsik, A 2000, ‘The origins of human rights regimes: Democratic delegation in postwar Europe’, International Organisation, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 217-252.

Mutua, M 2001, ‘Savages, Victims and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights’, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 201-245.

Risse, T, Ropp, S & Sikkink, K 1999, ‘The power of human rights’, International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.1949-1999.

Schmitz, H 2010, Transnational Human Rights Networks: Significance and Challenges. Web.

Tilley, J 2000, ‘Cultural Relativism’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 501-547.

Tharoor, S 2000, Tharoor: Are Human Rights Universal? – World Policy Journal – World Policy Institute. Web.