Cultural relativism gives internal society judgment priority. Makau Mutua argues that the West remains in the past perception concerning the non-Western community, an insight that is largely driven by the cultural superiority and racial perspective of the West part. The term culture means the society set.
Human rights do not belong to the Western discoveries. For instance, Peter Schwag and Adamantia Pollis claim that each society has its human rights concepts. On the other hand, Yogindra Khushalani also argues that human rights concepts can be drawn from the origins of the human race. The human rights historical manifest, as well as the society’s cross-cultural conceptions, are not true at any given time. The human rights of every citizen allow them to have respect and equality in the state. Human rights are neither a group of objectives nor abstract values such as liberty, welfare, and political participation, which are critical elements that tie the social practice to the notion of human rights [1]. Therefore, the idea of having human rights from the West is not correct.
Makau Mutua claims that the enterprise of human rights inaccurately presented itself as an eternal truth guarantor, and its absence will cause the impossible availability of human civilization. Makau argues that the corpus of human rights, well-meaning, is a Eurocentric construct for the non-Western people, as well as society’s reconstruction, which contains cultural biases, practices, and norms. For instance, he explains that the state is the only body that can salvage any victims. The state is the major human rights subject and guarantor[2]. The state is the main predator of human rights that must be controlled. Unlike the perspective of international human rights regulations, the state is the one that has the power to control the country and salvage human rights. This is because the state has the public power as well as the executive power. The state understands the different people in it and can, therefore, understand the required human rights. This ties human rights entirely to the culture that they have in the state. The culture is the main salvage, not even the state since human rights are tied entirely to the state. As a result, the violation of human rights is considered a clash between a salvage culture and the human rights culture. Therefore, the corpus of human rights, well-meaning, is a Eurocentric construct for non-Western people, as well as society’s reconstruction, which contains cultural biases, practices, and norms[3].
Makau maintains that the success of the human rights movement will only come by avoiding Eurocentrism, such as European people attacks and the civilizing crusade. The approach to human rights can bring the universality of human rights[4]. The tradition of the Indigenous people of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific must be installed to reconstruct and deconstruct the universal rights bundle that all human beings can call theirs. For instance, he explains the crusades, such as the ant- Female Genital Mutilation, have taken the European approach. For instance, the African culture allows the mutilation of all women. This should come with minimal discrimination and racism, as the Western shows[5]. The West Crusade was led by a Judeo-Christian prejudice, ignoring the moral as well as the cultural practices, showing ignorance, aggressiveness, paternalism, activism as well and contempt, frustrating and shocking even goodwill people. Therefore, the tradition of the Indigenous people of Africa, Asia, the Americas, as well as the Pacific must be installed to reconstruct as well as deconstruct the universal right bundle that all human being can call their[6]. This is the only way the approach to human rights can bring the universality of human rights.
On the other hand, universalism means that the application in all over the world context. Donnelly explains the universality of the human right. He explains that human rights are not cultural at any given time. The culture does not play a role in the development of rights; does it have any role in supporting or against specific human rights? He states that there is no specific culture or any doctrine that is either incompatible or compatible with any human rights[7]. The most important thing is the thing that the people in a society do with all the cultural resources available. The cultural practices are massively malleable. Donnelly uses many illustrations from various cultures of different countries in explaining his theory of human rights universality rather than cultural relativism. Therefore, Donnelly explains that human rights are not cultural at any given time but practices that need to favor human life.
Similarly, Donnelly explains human rights as the rights that protect the necessary things for life and dignity for a healthy human life. Donnelly takes the position of universality. For instance, he explains ways in which human universality enables a state to preserve sovereignty as well as autonomy and citizens’ self-determination[8]. Donnelly illustrates this in his two examples. First is the example of apostasy law, in which Article 18 of the UDHR 1948 states that every human being has the right and freedom of conscience, region, and thought. In this situation, religion is very critical in the Muslim or Islamic states. This restricts this nation from punishing the people who accept to change their religion. Therefore, the universality of religion can aid in defending such cultural practices that do not show human rights and dignity at any given time.
At the same time, he explains ways in which human rights are universal. First, all the nations consider human rights that are internationally known as firms strongly founded on international policies as well as law. Second, every leading worldview, culture, and religion participates in intersecting harmony universality as well as functional universality. Lastly, the consensus is based on a contemporary standard that threatens universality and affects human dignity in modern states as well as modern markets[9]. Therefore, the intersecting consensus universality, functional universality as well and international lawful universality are connected with human rights, meriting the existence of human dignity and the value of life.
Human rights are fundamentally related in five ways. First is ontological relativity, whereby human rights are excluded from a natural fabric part of reality, and they do not relate at any time or everywhere. Second, in anthropological or historical relativity, human rights involve the historical response to any threat posed in life by either the modern states or modern marks. This threat did not exist in the traditional period, and it cannot be assumed that it will exist in society in the next years[10]. Third, the foundational relativity of human rights has different foundational considerations. The foundation of human rights is not based mainly on culture but depends on other universal factors. Fourth, enjoyment relativity, human rights, even if they hold universality, are installed internationally, making enjoyment relative to where an individual was born or lives, the state. Lastly, relativism specificity, the human rights list should allow learning of individuals socially as well as historically concerning the importance of human rights[11]. Therefore, human rights universality does not entirely depend on the culture but a consideration of factors that threaten human life and protection measures possible to preserve human life.
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:
