The idea that human rights are universal can seem intuitively true to many people. But what does it mean for something to be universal? And why is it important that we think about this issue? In this article, I will explore the implications of cultural relativism for understanding human rights and argue that even though culture can shape how we understand them, they remain universally applicable regardless. I will discuss three different perspectives on this question and explain how each one has its merits but ultimately fails to provide an adequate basis for defending universalism.
What does it mean to say that something is universal? We might think of universality in terms of objective truth or reality, meaning that things exist independently of human experience or social construction.
We might say that the physical laws of nature are universal because they apply everywhere in the same way. Or we might think of universality in terms of human experience, meaning that some principles apply to everyone equally despite their differences.
We might say that all humans have emotions like sadness or joy, and these experiences must be treated similarly across cultures.
We might think of universality in terms of consensus, meaning that something becomes universal when enough people agree upon it. This perspective holds that whatever is agreed upon by a majority of people should be considered universal.
The concept of universality implies that there is something that applies to everyone equally, regardless of contextual factors. When applied to human rights, this means that certain protections should apply to everyone regardless of where they live or who they are. Human rights are often associated with concepts like freedom, equality, dignity, and security. They protect individuals from being subjected to violence, oppression, and discrimination, among other abuses.
But can human rights truly be universal if their interpretation depends on cultural relativism? Cultural relativism holds that beliefs and practices vary between cultures and should not be judged against a universal standard. According to this view, what may seem unjust or immoral in one society may be perfectly acceptable in another.
Female genital mutilation is illegal in many countries but is common practice in others. Similarly, homosexuality is criminalized in several countries while being widely accepted in others.
Even though culture plays an important role in shaping how we understand human rights, this does not mean that they become relative or contingent on different interpretations. We cannot escape the fact that some things are clearly wrong, such as torture or enslavement. These actions cause harm to human life and liberty and violate basic principles of justice. Just because these practices are part of someone's culture doesn't make them acceptable. Instead, we must recognize that all humans have inherent dignity and deserve equal protection under the law. This recognition transcends cultural differences and provides a basis for defending universalism.
The first perspective argues that universality requires objective truth or reality. It posits that there are certain moral principles that exist independently of our experiences or understanding. By relying on science or reason, we can discover objective facts about morality and apply them across contexts.
This approach faces significant challenges. Firstly, it assumes that humans share a single way of understanding morality, which ignores the diversity of perspectives and philosophies. Secondly, it fails to account for historical change and evolution, meaning that what was once considered right may no longer be so today.
It is impossible to prove objectively whether something is truly right or wrong without appealing to subjective experience.
A second view holds that universality depends on human experience, meaning that everyone has similar emotions and needs regardless of their background. This argument focuses on shared human nature rather than shared values or beliefs.
We might say that everyone feels pain or has a need for security. While this perspective recognizes the importance of contextual factors like upbringing and environment, it still prioritizes commonalities over differences.
But even if we accept this premise, we face the challenge of how to translate abstract ideas into specific protections. How do we balance conflicting interests and ensure that everyone's rights are respected? Moreover, what happens when different cultures disagree on what constitutes a basic need or right? The concept of freedom, for instance, means different things in different societies, making its application difficult.
Some argue that universality requires consensus among people. This approach suggests that whatever is agreed upon by most people should be treated as universal. But again, this leaves room for interpretation and manipulation, as those with power can shape consensus to suit their own ends. It also fails to acknowledge that not all cultures have equal influence or representation, leading to skewed results.
While culture plays an important role in shaping our understanding of human rights, it does not undermine their universality. By recognizing inherent dignity and protecting against harm, we can defend a universalist position despite cultural diversity. Doing so requires careful consideration of historical, philosophical, and practical arguments, but ultimately promotes justice and equality across contexts.
Can human rights be universal if their interpretation depends on cultural relativism?
Human rights are not something that can be universally defined because of the different interpretations based on cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is an approach where ethical systems are viewed as relative to culture and time period. Therefore, it may be difficult for people from different cultures to agree upon what constitutes human rights if they have been shaped by unique beliefs and practices.