Idea of Human Rights

Human Rights What is the biggest problem in constructing a theoretical justification for the idea of human rights? Be as precise as possible, and try to show how this problem plagues at least two theories. (These two theories would be relativism and universalism.) Relativism vs. universalism. Since the very beginning of the idea of 'universal' organizations that transcended national borders came into being, this debate has plagued theorists of international human rights.

Human rights have, in classical Western philosophy, been "held to be universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and to be independent in the sense that they exist and are available as standards of justification and criticism whether or not they are recognized and implemented by the legal system or officials of a country." (Nickel, 1992:561-2) Furthermore, the world is growing 'smaller,' or 'flatter' with the advent of the globalization of the world economy.

Thus -- in theory -- it should be easier to arrive at a doctrine of universal human rights that stretches across borders. But globalization also means that the world is growing increasingly pluralized in its conceptions of what constitutes universal human rights.

Thus, comes the question of how can universal human rights exist in a culturally diverse world? "As the international community becomes increasingly integrated, how can cultural diversity and integrity be respected? Is a global culture inevitable? If so, is the world ready for it? How could a global culture emerge based on and guided by human dignity and tolerance?" (Ayton-Shenke, 1995) These are some of the issues, concerns and questions underlying the debate over universal human rights and cultural relativism.

On one hand, to assert that there is a universal doctrine of human rights seems to impose a singular, rights-based system upon the world in a colonial fashion. Quite often, a Caucasian, Western, narrow conceptualization of rights that stresses the individual over the collective is preferred to traditional systems, it could argued, under the guise of so-called human rights. One could also argue that human rights are in contradiction, even amongst the universal espousers of such rights.

Do "human rights" across borders imply more than mere individual liberty and extend to include security from violence and the necessary material conditions for personal survival? (Fagan, 2004) What of the conflict between Western powers regarding their own citizen's rights -- is there a right to health care for all human beings? Sweden would say yes, in the form of its socialized medicine system the United States would deny this right to its citizens.

Is capital punishment humane? The United States agrees in some contexts, England does not and outlaws capital punishment. But if there are no human rights on a universal level, then atrocities, such as transpired in Rwanda, say, one falls into the trap of relativism. One must allege that some rights extend across cultural boundaries, rather saying that no standards are possible, for fear of treading on cultural landmines.

"While the history of colonialism and racism cautions us against the misuse of power across cultures, other examples, such as the failure to stop various genocides in this century, remind us that power also brings a responsibility to engage. The correct response to a power relationship is not necessarily to stand back. To refrain from intervening is to side with those on top. Given the ubiquity of power, between and within cultures, there is no option of a power-free discourse over values.

One way or another, moral choice is unavoidable," asserts one espouser of universalism. (Nathan, 1997) But to assert that there is a freedom from torture begs the question as well of what torture -- what is a crime, and what is punishment? The United Nation states that it attempts to draw on traditional cultural values to reinforce the application and relevance of universal human rights in answering such questions. "Traditional cultures should be approached and recognized as partners to promote greater respect for and observance of human rights.

Drawing on compatible practices and common values from traditional cultures would enhance and advance human rights promotion and protection. This approach not only encourages greater tolerance, mutual respect and understanding, but also fosters more effective international cooperation for human rights." (Ayton-Shenke, 1995) But this assertion proves problematic, particularly regarding women's rights.

"Rights that change the relations of women and men, however, are much less readily applicable across cultures, because the roles of women are central to the self-definitions of all cultures and hence to all cultures' sense of the differences among cultures.

Women are the bearers of culture not just in the cliched senses that they socialize children or (some believe) embody the gentler aspirations of each civilization, but in the more fundamental sense that groups of people define their identifies -- what makes them different -- in large part through the.