Cultural relativism gives internal society judgment the 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 from the west part. The term culture means the society set. The 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 the human rights concepts can be drawn from the human race origin. 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. The human rights are neither a group of objectives or abstract values such as liberty, welfare as well as political participation, which are critical elements tieing the social practice sets at the human rights notion[1]. Therefore, the idea of having human rights from the west is not correct.
Makau Mutua clams that the enterprise of human rights inaccurately presented itself as an eternal truth guarantor, which its absence will cause impossible availability of human civilization. Makau argues that the corpus of human rights, well-meaning, is a construct of Eurocentric for the non-western people as well as society’s reconstruction that contain cultural biases practices as well as the norms. For instance, he explains that the state is the only body that can salvage any victims. The state is the major human right subject and guarantor[2] The state, the main predator of human rights that must be controlled. Unlike the perspective of the international human right regulations, the state is the one that has the power of controlling the country and salvaging 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 right. This ties the human rights entirely to the culture that they have in the state. The culture is the main salvage, not even the state since the human rights are tied entirely to the state. As a result, the violation of human rights is considered as a clash between a salvage culture and the human right culture. Therefore, the corpus of human rights, well-meaning, is a construct of Eurocentric for the non-western people as well as society’s reconstruction that contain cultural biases practices as well as the norms[3].
Makau maintains the success of human right movement will only come by avoiding the Eurocentrism such as non- European people attacks as well as the civilizing crusade. The approach of human rights multicultural can bring the universality of human rights[4]. The tradition of the indigenous people of Africa, Asia, 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 theirs. For instance, he explains the crusades such as the ant- Female Genital Mutilation has 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 as contempt frustrating and shocking even goodwill people. Therefore, the tradition of the indigenous people of Africa, Asia, 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 of human rights multicultural 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 the human rights are not cultural at any given time. The culture neither plays any role in the development of the rights of the human being nor does it have any role in support 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 the cultural relativism. Therefore Donnelly explains that the 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 dignity for healthy human life. Donnelly takes the position of universality. For instance, he explains ways in which human universality enables a state to reserve the sovereignty as well as the autonomy and also, citizen’s self-determination[8]. Donnelly illustrates this in his two examples. First, is the apostasy law example, in which the article 18 of the UDHR 1948 states that every human being has the right and freedom of conscience, the region as well as though. 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 right dignity at any given time.
At the same time, he explains ways in which human rights are universal. First, is the all the nation consider human rights that are internationally known as firm strongly founded on international policies as well as law. Second, every leading worldview, cultures as well as religion participate in the intersecting harmony universality as well as the functional universality. Lastly, the consensus is based on a contemporary standard threats universality that affects human dignity in modern states as well as modern markets[9]. Therefore the intersecting consensus universality, functional universality as well as the international lawful universality are connected with human rights meriting the existence of human dignity and value of life.
The human rights are fundamentally relatives in five ways. First, ontological relativity, whereby the human rights are excluded from a natural fabric part of reality as well as they do not relate at any time everywhere. Second, anthropological or historical relativity, the human rights involve the historical response to any threat posed in life by either the modern states or modern marked. This threat did not exist in the traditional period and cannot be assumed that they will exist in the society in the next years[10]. Third, foundational relativity, the human right have different foundational considerations. The foundation of human right is not majorly based on culture but depends on other factors that are universal. Fourth, enjoyment relativity, human right, even if they hold universality, are installed internationally making enjoyment relative to where an individual was born or lives, the state. Lastly, relativisms specificity, the human right 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 the human life and protection measures possible to preserve human life
