Are Human Rights Universal or Cultural?

MA Sultan - محمد سلطان

"Are human rights universal?" Such a question has been tackled in many seminars, webinars, and scientific conferences because its consequences could draw the fate of millions of oppressed people aiming to find peace someday. The dilemma was triggered by some Communist states that were looking for their own interests (Blackburn, 2011). Also, another catalyst is the Non-Aligned Movement who asserted the privilege of the European interest in human rights law (Otto, 1998). Since that dispute, the disagreement upon the universality or relativity of Human Rights has been discussed. Each side or camp has a very strong argumentation concerning his point and perspective, but focusing only on the differences nourished and widened the areas of disunity between both argumentations, whereas both representatives are deems as very extremists because the neglected points of agreement are many, but have to be mentioned. Many years ago, the area of disagreement has shrunk and almost all the sides do agree upon certain rights that every individual should enjoy.

Investigating Universalism, Universalists define culture as irrelevant to morals because –as human beings- we have one common set of morals and ethics. Also, they do assert the notion that culture has nothing to do with the validity of morals. Accordingly, morals are self-defined and not restricted to a certain belief, or culture, but rather human beings are interconnected and indivisible, and that leads to similar morals and rules. “[T]he Universalist side –so far- does not recognize that universal standards may be themselves culturally tied and allied to dominant regimes of power” (Otto, 1998). Adapting such opinion gives the green light for the tyrannies and their allies to proceed in torturing the innocents and exploiting them. Such a claim raising the notion of unity between human being concerning the morals neglecting the culture was perceived by unpleasant from anthropologists. In 1947, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) counter-argued the universality of human rights claiming that such orientation neglects the cultural differences that label each society with its uniqueness, and it is like having a meal with its taste that makes it distinguishable (Donnelly, 1984).

On the other hand, Cultural Relativism supporters consider the culture as the sole measure stick and rule for life affairs. Even culture relativism supporter are not equal in the level of support for the culture because they are varied in many levels, namely three levels, the ones who are differing about the interpretation of the individual rights, the ones who are differing about the form by which the rights are established, and the ones who are differing about the permissible variations might happen in any culture (Donnelly, 1984). the pro-culture relativism proceed in arguing the idea of the universality of human rights by stating that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was set as a representative for the western civilization, asserting the western values and beliefs and compatible with its orientation and even goes further to the extent of interfering the internal affairs of other culture trying to eliminate it and make one culture dominant (Blackburn, 2011). 

Concerning relativity and universality, the radical Universalists seem to be trapped in a logical fallacy because they entitle themselves talk on behalf of the humanity to assign some rights for the mankind though the vast majority of these rights are acceptable, but the disagreement occurs- in the first place- about their legitimacy to talk on behalf of mankind.  To spread such equality in rights a set of rights has to be chosen, and another controversial step has to be taken, the picked rights do represent who. Picking rights from a certain level or country have many side effects, such as eradicating the rights of other communities, and the people of that community, do also, regard their rights as universal from their point of view (Donnelly, 1984). Human Rights supporters argue against the aforementioned claim that if the culture is the only source that determines the rights, there will be no rights whatsoever because the process figuring out the rights depends on the understanding of the famous figures of the culture. For example, if a culture is ruled by some radical culture relativist, they would consider their own thinking as the only way to assign the right and consider it as the culture. Also, during the history, it is quite known that the rulers of the culture do not recognize the rights of the individuals simply even if it is right and acceptable because the leading influenced figures convince the commoner by certain rights as the standards.  

Human Rights and culture universalism might seem to contradict each other form the outer shell, but in the core, both share a lot in common. Human Rights does look for the benefit of the humans considering that all mankind is the offspring of one male and female, we are equal, thus we have to enjoy equal rights. The wisdom behind the universality of the human rights is that there is a set of rights that every human being should have as an intrinsic or natural right, no matter what his language, complexion or religion is. The whole ideology does not rescue human beings because of dynasty or nobility, but rather for their existence as human beings. Such a perspective is totally right and mentioned in almost all the divine scripture. Islamically speaking, Qur'an Says "O humankind, we (GOD) have created you from a male and female and made you into nations and tribes in order to know each other". The universality of human rights does present the same point that every human being has rights which are bestowed upon him for the sake of his humanity. 

Similarly, the idea of cultural relativism does also keen for the safeguard of right, life, and the existence of humans, but from another point of view. Actually, investigating the codes of any culture, the investigator might find that the means are different and even the ways through which the goal is implemented are also different, but both camps- Universalists and Relativists- are looking for the same result. For example, one of the major rights mentioned in the UDHR is the right of any individual to life. In the Japanese culture, the samurai who kills himself after a defeat he does that for his honor because the culture encourages him to do so, but the question is why would he do so? Because he is the one entitled to protect the folks and his defeat means that his folk is going to be captured and killed, so he should scarifies himself. The moral is he does so not because he wants to do so, but because this is the way in his culture the he uses to show excuse for his inability to safe he fellow's or folks' lives. 

Dealing with the deficiencies, both camps are also considered as imperfect in some fields. Culture relativism-hopefully- looks for the sake of the collective and individual, but according to a set of rules and norms set by the culture. The miserable point about this is that it is very flexible and not fixed; whatever is deemed as a culture today, maybe, is not that tomorrow. For example, I have many old people who always relate to me the stories of the 30s and of 40s saying that at that time the profession of acting and theater was considered as very mean one. And even concerning the legal actions, such as ask for an eyewitness in a case or so, if the witness is an actor, his testimony would not be accepted due to the notion that actors and singers are very vicious people according to the culture at that time. Nowadays, culturally, the same profession as very creative and prestigious one and even the culture has changed to the extent that it supports and encourages the actors. Thinking again about those actors who were unjustly treated in the past, such example does show the dilemma happens sometimes by blindly following the culture. Regarding Human Rights, as a human being witnessing the status quo I can guarantee that there is a consensus about the declared rights even by the relativist, but implementing the rights is totally impractical and even the organizations calling for the rights are politicized. Nowadays, whoever wants to invade a country would say that the war is for the rescue of humanity. Bush during in the Iraqi invasion explicitly said that he is doing that for the sake of humanity and also he is launching a crusade. Although both calls are very contradicting, neither one of which has happened. A million Iraqi killed, innocent people died, women were raped, children were abused and no one bat an eye. Many human rights organizations condemned that act, but how would that condemnation helps the killed children and raped women? What lacks the human rights activists, organizations or even countries adopting the ideology of caring about humanity is the practicality of the implementation. Such implementation would happen when the countries calling for human rights can distinguish between Human Rights and political plans.

References

Otto, D. (1998). Rethinking the ‘Universality’ of Human Rights Law,Human Rights Quarterly.

Blackburn, R. (2011). Cultural relativism in the universal periodic review of

the human rights council. Barcelona: Institut Català Internacional per la Pau.

Donnelly, J. (1984). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. (Vol. 7,

pp. 400-419). The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from

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