And so is the case with the article, “Are Human Rights Universal?” by Shashi Tharoor.
The first objection has its roots in the philosophical grounds, which claims that the world has been inhabited by different cultures since the time immemorial and it always has been the case that the values and the rights of a certain society have been in relevancy to the culture in which they exist; and so to simply rule out the underlying assumption of culture and impose universal charter of human rights would be a practical fiasco.
Moreover, in many of the places other than the west, people are not generally granted the same kinds of rights – the reason being the cultural differences, for example, as mentioned by the author, the Confucian or the Vedic traditions where they consider duties to be more important than the rights; or the African societies, for that matter, where they deem the group rights have a preference over the individual rights and the decisions are made accordingly.
Other than this, the author states that in many of the developing countries, certain rights which are taken for granted in the west are simply not suitable for the societies of the existing third world countries, giving the example of paid vacations. The article suggests that the developing countries might not be able to afford such rights as they lack the basic developed infrastructure for the acceptable western standard of life, particularly because of the lack of the economic development.
Another objection against the conception of universal human rights has religious foundations, where the critics of this realm argue that unless a certain idea is founded upon the values of God, it cannot be universal, and so for them the universal human rights agenda has no such basics. Other than the stated oppositions against the universality of the human rights, some critics also give another interesting insight. According to them, the idea of