Universality of Human Rights - Research Paper Example

Introduction Human rights are highly known across the globe. There are various organisations in different nations that lobby for human rights. Despite the fact that human rights are known all over the universe, situations have been witnessed where they are violated. This brings the aspect of how human rights are understood in different places all over the world. This also brings in the question as to whether there are any common standards for human rights. (Donnelly, 2003) Various scholars assert that human rights are indivisible, mutually dependent and interconnected. They are mostly expressed in forms of treaties, general principles and local and international laws. There have been so many questions pertaining to the concept of human rights. This concerns whether the values communities that have nothing for consumption can relate to the values of consumer society. Many researchers assert that the whole aspect of human rights is a concept of the west. The aspect of universality of human rights has therefore had its two sides of the debate. This paper therefore answers the question whether human rights are universal or not. (Donnelly, 2003) Are human rights universal? Various scholars have argued that saying that human rights are universal is like assertion that the poor and the affluent in the society can sleep in tents or even use first class flight to any place they desire. Many questions have been posed concerning the concept of human rights. For instance, when a husband is stopped from beating his wife, are the rights of the man being violated or the woman’s being upheld? This definitely indicates that the issue of human rights being universal has had very heated objections. Various objections have been put forth concerning the issue that human rights being universal. Some of the objections have regional basis. The aspect of human rights being universal first came into the limelight during the colonial period of most developing nations. It is asserted that the colonialists just wanted to ‘interfere’ with the activities of the third world nations by bringing in the concept of the universality of human rights. It is highly known that issues of economic development are still challenging and being worked on and therefore human rights issues are not a priority to the third world nations. It is only the minority who are westernized in these nations that uphold the issues of human rights. Research clearly shows that human rights aspects cannot be seen across the ladder. (Keal, 2003) This is more so to the low income earners in the society. This therefore shows that asserting that human rights are universal would not be right but to say that they are the rights of the privileged, westernized, the exposed or the affluent in the society. All these show that human rights are highly of the western culture which cannot cut across the globe. There are various examples that indicate the westernisation of the human rights. Avery good example is the right for one to have salary during vacations. This can never and does not have any relevance in the third world nations. Another good example relates to women’s rights. These cannot be universal considering the fact that different cultures have diverse values that relate to women. In Africa, the culture stipulates that women have to submit to their husbands and they are not equals. This is exactly the opposite case in United States and United Kingdom where both man and woman are equal entities. It is very common for a woman in the western countries to file for divorce because the husband is not helping with the household chores. (Chandler, 2002) This would cause uproar of laughter in third world nations as it is deemed to be the duty of the wife. This is immaterial whether both parties are formally employed or not. In such nations, marriage is an alliance and not a contract between to parties. In western nations it is a contract which can be terminated any time. This is not the case in other nations. (Allen and Rachel, 2002) Some of the objections of the aspect of human rights being universal are philosophical in nature. These assert that human rights are simply based on values. The values can be defined in relation to perceptions that are cultural based. The argument in this case is therefore the fact that culture is diverse and never universal in nature. This therefore narrows down to the fact that human rights are be universal. This view point has been objected by some philosophers. They argue that the sentiments are baseless since they focus on individualistic factors. To this they argue that the people want to avoid any form of interference from the state or nation at large. It is quite evident that other nations apart from western countries uphold a community view. This is where the aspect of the sum of individual members is not held in high regard but the immediate society or community. This also means that the rights of the community or groups of people are deemed to be more important than those of the individuals. (Freeman, 2002) In this case, conflicts are resolved basing on the aspects of the legal rights. This is also where rights are not considered to be as imperative as the duties of the people in the community. This is very common in African nations where individuals are nurtured and protected by the community where they live. This is where people exist because of others and all the good qualities are accrued from the larger scope of the community. Some of the objections to the fact that human rights are universal are based on religion or faith. The argument in this case therefore is the aspect that human rights would be embraced across the globe if they related to the individuals’ faith. This is whereby the human rights emanate from the creator. (Keal, 2003) A thorough analysis by various religious leaders of the human rights does not clearly show from which faith they emanate. This makes it hard to be termed as universal in nature. Even if the rights were based on a single faith, they would still not be universal since people all over the universe have different religions and therefore a wide gap in what they believe in. These objections can however be countered by analyzing aspects of protection, dignity of people in a society, law and government’s legitimacy. All these can be found across the globe in every society. It is therefore arguable that these values are part of the rights and therefore human rights are universal in nature. (Pogge, 2002) Earlier arguments asserted differences between the state and the individual. Research shows that culture is used by opponents to object universality of human rights just when they want to oppress the vulnerable in the society. Various arguments have been put forth that assert that there is no nation that can prove to be upholding its culture. Furthermore, each and every culture is highly subject to change. This is considering the fact that there are many external influences on culture. This can be from colonialism or globalisation that allows people of diverse cultures to interact. This is considering the fact that there have been a lot of changes that culture is no longer held in high esteem. This has been caused by immigration. With globalisation in the twenty first century, people of different cultures find themselves in one community and therefore cannot be governed by one single culture. (Agosín, 2001) This also shows that culture continues to evolve as time goes by. After a period of time, some things within the culture are outgrown as the society continues to respond to the stimuli that are from the external and the internal environment. This calls for a common denominator for handling conflicts among the people of diverse origin and cultures. Researchers have asserted that it is quite challenging for all people in a society to be subject to the culture therein which they may not even like or be part of. It is therefore more important that individuals be given the freedom to be governed by what they feel are their rights at a very personal level. The aspect that human rights have a western basis can be refuted. Majority of the people who argue in this line are the perpetrators who are fond of violating human rights. For instance, the issues of women rights are asserted by men who actually violate the values. These issues of women’s rights are not refuted by the women who are the victims. This therefore shows that some individuals in the society simply want to continue to oppress others as they claim that the values in human rights are westernized. It is also evident that various third world nations participated in the process of having human rights acceptable across the globe. They include Panama, Lebanon, Cuba, China and India. The role of these nations is highly evident during the drafting process of the UDHR-Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Power, Samantha and Graham 2000) This shows that human rights are not just a western concept. The argument that human rights were imposed on third world nations during colonialism is out- rightly wrong. This is considering the fact that many of the nations are still adopting the human rights principles long after colonialism period. Many scholars still argue on this fact as they consider the issues that are covered in human rights. Some of the questions that are posed include; do people in the third world nations require the right to life? Do they need the freedom of expression and from torture or they are an exception? The answer is evident that they need all this to be protected against oppression from individuals in the society and the state at large. This shows that they are acceptable and cut across the globe. (Wilson, Richard. and Jon , 2003) For instance, the concept of female genital mutilation is usually forced on very young girls in the name of culture. Research in the affected communities where this practice is prevalent showed that none of the girls went through the practice willingly but asserted that they had no other option since it was mandatory. (Forsythe, 2000) The objections of human rights being universal were also based on religious grounds. This argument has no justification at all. This is considering the fact despite the diversity of religions, there are values therein that can be drawn across the globe. Some of these values include mercy, love, justice and compassion. This therefore shows that the arguments against the assertion that the human rights are universal are not in any way justified. (Orend, 2002) Further analysis on the issue of whether human rights are universal or not brings into the limelight the basis of the rights. Scholars assert that the human aspect emanates from the fact that each person has rights despite the differences among people. This therefore implies that every person deserves some dignity in the way they are handled. The basis of human rights is also the fact that all people as long as they are human are independent, free and equal. According to scholars who back the idea that human rights are universal, various issues in the rights make them universal. One of them is the fact that they cannot be divided and are quite interdependent. It is evident that human rights whether political, rights to work, education, freedom of expression and socio-economic rights are highly indivisible. (Havemann, 1999) This also includes cultural rights, rights to social security and collective rights. It is evident that these rights are interdependent, interrelated and cannot be divided. This therefore means that any change on one right has direct influence on the others. This is whether the change is negative or positive. In this case, any place where people are denied some rights means that their other rights are also negatively affected. This therefore supports the fact that human rights are universal in nature. (Wilson, Richard. and Jon, 2003) Other factors that relate to universality of human rights include the fact they are non discriminatory and equal. As earlier on illustrated, all human beings are equal. The fact that human rights are not discriminatory in nature clearly elaborates on their universality. This is considering the fact that this aspect cuts across the globe. Analysis of all treaties that deal with human rights are non discriminatory in nature. (Havemann, 1999) This principle is highly used in the elimination of racial and gender discrimination among other forms of discrimination. The aspect of non-discrimination goes hand in hand with the equality principle that characterizes humanity. This therefore shows that human rights are not for western nations, the affluent in the society but are applicable to all as long as they are human. This therefore supports the statement that human rights are universal in nature. (Chee, 2003) There are also various issues that show the universality of human rights. This includes the fact that they are highly horizontal, vertical and historical in nature. They also spread across geographical boundaries. Analysis of the aspect of culture in relation to human rights shows that there are qualities evident in every culture. They include the concepts of human dignity, freedom for all and brotherhood are found in all cultures. This is what human rights are all about. This therefore shows that human rights are universal. Cultural aspects should not be used to argue against the concept of universality of human rights. (Hitchcock, 2002) An example can be taken from the occurrences in Afghanistan. This is where a woman was stoned because it was alleged that she was adulterous. She was a mother of seven children. Before this occurrence, some two women were rescued from being stoned because of claims that they were adulterous. They were actually rescued by the high court in Britain. The women were from Pakistan nation. Research carried out in these nations mentioned above shows that women are highly marginalized and their rights denied in the name of culture. They are not allowed to go anywhere alone unless when they are with their spouses or brothers. They are also not allowed to drive cars. This is more so in the Islamic nations. This is usually carried out in the name of culture. (Wilson, Richard. and Jon, 2003) Such nations even deny women the right to education and they are usually forced into marriage without their consent. This definitely indicates that no arguments should be based on culture to justify such barbaric actions. This can also be identified in the way criminals in United States go through punishments that are corporal and very cruel in nature. (Woods, Hope and Ibrahim 2004) This is considering the fact that every human being has the right to life no matter the mistake he or she could have committed. Every human being should have the freedom of expression and the right to education irrespective of their gender, class etc The violators of human rights are known to draw their allegations on religious issues such as the fact that Adam was created before eve and the issues of women being submissive to men. (Barzilai, 2003) Analysis of this allegations shows that the scriptures in fact advocate for human rights and their universality. This is because the same scripture asserts that husbands must love their wives and masters should not oppress their slaves. This is a very clear indicator that every person has the right to respect. It is still very essential to note that the objections of universality of human rights on religious grounds are not justified. A very good example can be illustrated from Pakistan nation. In nineteen eighty six, a death penalty was declared for any one who would blaspheme Muhammad. He was a prophet in the nation. During this period, many Christians were found guilty of this crime. (Wilson, 2005) They were more than two hundred in number. Many Christians protested against the law and one man committed suicide just because of the oppressive law in the nation. Current research in the nation shows that Christians continue to go through a lot of oppression from their muslin counterparts. This shows that human rights cannot be pegged on religious grounds. The universality of human rights in such a case helps to protect the lives of innocent people who suffer in the hands of their perpetrators. (Littman, 1999) Conclusion In conclusion, universality of human rights is a hotly debated issue in the twenty first century. Various objections have been put forth concerning this issue. Some of the arguments against this aspect assert that human rights have western origin and therefore they cannot be universal. The argument here is that they were imposed during colonisation period. It is also argued that people have different cultures and therefore human rights cannot in any way be universal. Other scholars still assert that human rights are not accrued from religious grounds and therefore they cannot be universal. These assertions have been countered by those who concur that human rights are universal. The argument that human rights are westernized and imposed on third world nations is not true. This is considering the fact that long after colonialism era, they are still in use in so many third world nations. Further more, nations like Panama, Lebanon, Cuba, China and India participated in making human rights universal. It is also clear that though the rights do not point directly point to one religion, their values can be traced in many religions. This includes justice, brotherhood, freedom for all and human dignity can be traced in most religions. The arguments based on culture are not justified since most cultures are subject to change due to external and internal influences. Furthermore this point is put forth by perpetrators of injustice who oppress women and the poor in the society in the name of culture. Human rights are based on values such as equality, non discrimination and respect to human dignity which cut across the globe. This definitely proves the fact that human rights are universal. Read More