Advantages And Disadvantages Of Universalism

This research is based on the “universalist” theory of human rights. The Universalist theory supposes that human rights are universal since they are said to belong to all humans in every society. Human rights are also supposed to be inalienable; because they flow from and protect human existence, they cannot be taken away without endangering the value of that existence. However, these universal and inalienable qualities of human rights are disputable in both their conception and operation (Heard A, 1997).

The concepts of Universalism and Relativism are fundamental to Justice Studies insofar as the perceptions of justice/injustice heavily rely on either one of these points of view. To be sure, Universalism considers everything is equal in its natural state. Conversely, the concept of Relativism (the antithesis of Universalism) posits that everything is variable, or, situational. “The universalistic conception of distributive justice, rules are held to be just and unalterable regardless of context. The relativistic conception is that rules are just only in particular situations and are alterable according to context” (Kashima et.al, 1987, p. 51).

Comedian Robert Orben joked, “There is so much pollution in the air now that if it weren’t for our lungs there’d be no place to put it all.” As Homer Simpson famously said, this joke is “funny because it’s true.” The pollution of Earth has been going on for decades, but recently scientists have been pushing very hard for practices that do not harm our planet. In 2006, the first Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was published, ranking countries on how well they are protecting Earth with their policies and practices. Who doesn’t love a little competition? One would think America would love a competition, looking at their competitive market economy. But America is not faring well in this environmental competition.

Cultural Relativism is an important ethical theory and James Rachels’ argument is significant to provide evidence to prove and disprove the idea. It is important to call attention to and understand differences between cultures. Tolerance is also an valid concept when arguing Cultural Relativism. Regardless of the outcome or viewpoint of the argument it is significant in the fact that it raises awareness for tolerance and differences between cultures and that no culture is more superior or more correct in relation to another. The theory of Cultural Relativism is the idea that each and every culture has it’s own moral code, and if this is true, there is no universal, ethical truth that every culture must abide by. A universal truth being one that is true in all situations, at all times, and in all places. It proposes that a person’s actions should be understood and judged only by those within the terms of their culture. It is an idea of tolerance and open mindedness to cultures who are not our own. In the article, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism, James Rachels discusses important themes and arguments in concurrence with his own argument against Cultural Relativism. I will argue that Cultural Relativism is challenged by James Rachels argument but not disproved.

I agree that moral relativism offers American society a good way to deal with value differences but I wouldn't say it is the best way. Everyone has different beliefs based how how they were raised and their culture. Sometimes it is easy to look past certain things and sometimes it is really difficult. For me personally, it does not bother me when I see women dressed in their cultures clothing. I see it as a way of them expressing their heritage and I 100% respect that. However, whenever I see Islamic looking men wearing turbans, it makes me feel a little weary. I am not trying to be stereotypical at all, but after what our country has experienced over the years, it makes me less trusting of certain individuals. That is one of the situations when it is harder for me to look past cultures moral values. Being an American came easy for me because I was born here, but there are some people who have came to America from struggling countries, who are just trying to catch a break. So I can understand moral relativism being a good way to deal with value differences. I do agree with soft-universalism’s claim that many values may be different from one culture to another but there are at least a few bottom line values that every culture accepts. As everyone should know, cultures around the world are very different. Each culture

The main reason why the universal idea of human right was created is because during world war 2 in the Holocaust the German was doing inhuman experiment and many other things to the Jewish people in the

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights possesses thirty total laws of which each individual living on this Earth has a right to have. However, all throughout history, those specific rights have been violated by others. The “Right to Equality”, the “Freedom from Discrimination”, the “Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment”, and the rest, are contravened daily. All of these rights are supposedly protected by the thirtieth right: “No One Can Take Away Your Human Rights”. Yet, this law is the most disobeyed in the world. Our human rights are taken away from us all the time; especially in the United States and Afghanistan. White dominance during the Civil Rights movement and the unjust rule of the Taliban are two of the biggest violators of the final right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It should be distinguished the universality of human rights and the universalism in human rights. The universality of human rights is a universal acceptance of the idea of human rights, while the universalism of human rights relates to the interpretation and application of the previously mentioned idea of human rights. The universality of human rights was reached after several lay down after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which is confirmed by the fact that no state today does not deny human rights and does not feel their offender (Köchler,

Ethical relativism further implies that an individual’s determination of right and wrong is subjective to their individuality and culture, which is a barrier to universalism because individuality and culture differ significantly.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a universal document that is likely acceptable and applicable for everyone. The UDHR identifies basic human rights that are based on the theory of Universalism. On the other hand, relativist claims that human rights are culturally dependent, and that no moral values can be made to apply to all cultures. Second notion is the UDHR are product of western political perspectives, such as Magna Carta of the UK, the American Bill of Rights, and the French revolution. Looking at these different theories about relativism from the Kevin Avruch's piece of reading, I believe that all three forms of relativism (descriptive, normative, and epistemic) contradicts the claim by the principles of the UDHR.

While the UDHR is derived from European cultures, it is applicable to other cultures, because they are based on normative ethics. Cultures are also malleable and can change, therefore, even if one of the articles is not accepted in the culture as a right, that can change. However, how they are influenced to change raises ethical questions. Despite cultural differences,

Goodhart accurately detects that Donnelly commences by uncovering his contention for the relative universality of human rights inside the continuous verbal confrontation on cultural relativism, which Donnelly depicts as the most examined issue in human rights hypothesis. Donnelly asserts that different eras and regions present drastic cultural contrasts that cannot be disputed, and Goodhart agrees with him, further elaborating that human rights do not impose cultural uniformity, but rather they are coherent with heterogeneity and do not profess monism. Donnelly further identifies methodological and substantive cultural relativism, as subsets of cultural relativism which instil a prescriptive force to these cultural contrasts. However, Donnelly states that what gives a respectable prescriptive standard to cultural contrasts is cultural relativism and not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Goodhart further applauds Donnelly for painstakingly recognising the different aspects of substantive cultural relativism and evaluating every aspect separately. What seals the case for relativity of human rights is when Donnelly concludes that the citizenship of individuals is fateful to whether one is likely to benefit from the enforcement of universally held human rights. As such, they are "extremely relative". This critical analysis conclusively agrees that human

Human rights are norms that serve to protect all people everywhere from severe legal, political and social abuses. Nevertheless, the whole concept of “human rights” is seriously misleading. It lays claim to the idea that these rights are common to all of mankind in all times and places. Disregarded within the concept of universality is that human rights exist independently of whether found in the practices, morality or law of their country or culture. Societies deprived of a central authority to accurately enforce these universal human rights leads to individuals adopting their own idiosyncratic interpretations. Of all human rights, the most critical is the right to own property because owning property gives

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

capacity is not conceded by all cultures.” It is important to note the significant influence culture has on women’s rights issues. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) raised a variety of questions dealing with the inference of the term “universal.” It infers that the declaration is meant to represent human rights in all countries, including those that are non-Western with highly complex cultures and societies. By creating this agreement and applying it as universal it has the “contradictory effect of undermining communities’ autonomous rights to enjoy their own culture.” Additionally, in looking at historic actions of Western countries Anthropologists were concerned that the UDHR was a “series of attempts by the West to impose its values on other societies.” This can very well be the case because of the many debates that occurred surrounding women’s rights and female genital mutilation practices. Many criticized Western scholars claiming that they could not “legitimately criticize ‘traditional’ practices that seemed to violate women’s rights.” The context in which cultural practices are birthed are placed within the social construct of the origin society. One cannot possibly understand the human rights implications of another cultures if they don’t understand the culture as a participant. Also, there