'Universal' Human Rights?

[Amara]

We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet can we really say these rights are "universal" in the sense that each right is a norm accepted or at least, should be accepted by all in the international community?

I'm not sure if anyone is familiar with the communitarian perspectives which has been the underlying argument of many Asian leaders, in particular Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore - this perspective, contrary to that devised in the West of individual rights, places greater emphasis on the community and state... believing one's individual rights are secondary to that of the state.

There may be some value in viewing it this way in the sense that it is clear to see there has developed an excessiveness in regard to individual rights... are we too self-centred and egotistical? Do we need to place more emphasis on the community - our role in it, rather than thinking of our own interests as being paramount?

Although of course, in the case of Singapore, it is no doubt counter-productive to the well-being of society when the government directs fertility and reproductive options by manner of incentives and disincentives (even to the point where it is easier for educated people to have children than it is for the poor...creating an incentive for the poor to consider sterilisation).

Anyway, back to the point. Do you think, considering the communitarian perspective that in determining human rights we should invoke cultural relativism - history, culture, politics, economic difference should generate different standards - and that there is no "universal" or objective standard... it is merely a "western" one?

Let me ask more clearly - should we accept a different standard of 'rights' because of different circumstances. China is much different to Kenya, which is much different to the US - should we impose a particular understanding of "human rights" and disregard other ideologies? How do we really know if what we are told is "universal" is right??

 

[The.Menace]

I think we can't disregard other ideologies and therefor there are no universal human rights. I mean I disagree with many things that happen but I ain't God and I don't know if my views are right. Anyway before we start to blame other natiosn we have to take care about our violations. For example as long as the US hold those prisoners in Cuba they should shut the fuck up and don't even talk about human rights.

 

[Khaled]

I thin there should be a difference between social rights and human rights...
the State is a ssocial construct, it doesn'exist intrinsically, so it cannot undermine human rights... The thing is tht we often consider some social rights such freedom and "pursuit of happiness" as human. I believe that there are some human universal rights that should not be affected by culture like the right to live or protect your own life... but the problem is that it s very difficult to set clear boundaries between what is human, or just social

 

[FroDawgg]

^^^exactly

 

[LL COOL PAC]

A couple of thoughts...

As for rights being egocentric, in referring to what is owed by the world to the individual, could one not think of rights as obligations by the individual and corporate bodies to other individuals. Eg Right to education should imply and obligation by members of society to act so that provision can be made, be it through taxation etc.

I find the vilification of human rights by the right (usually in respect to the most vulnerable members of society) pretty hypocritical, given that it is usually the right that complains loudest when their rights begin to be infringed in the slightest manner. I suppose those who suggest disposing of such legislation can afford to do so, having never been in a position where their rights are under threat.

To return to the question, I read an interesting article on how 'third generation' rights relating to the 'fraternity' (as opposed to liberty- political rights and equality- social rights) are becoming more commonly mooted, particularly in South America, and relating to right to economic development, freedom from polution etc. Strikes me as a good idea but not exactly good legislation- a way of trying to achieve an ideal by a reductionist blanket of 'rights'.

 

[Amara]

I think we can't disregard other ideologies and therefor there are no universal human rights. I mean I disagree with many things that happen but I ain't God and I don't know if my views are right.

Yep. I agree. It is all very well to have developed these human rights and have them institutionalised into norms within our own societies, yet it's quite another to assume that our subjective beliefs are objective global values. I really wonder just how much the system we have is reflective of international views.

One thing I think to bear in mind is that it took a very long time for us to develop the current human rights. I mean, of course the concept isnt new, but to actually formally recognise them has been relatively late coming. It took years of colonialism, slavery, war after war, genocide, etc for us to come to this point and say, these are the values we aspire to. So for the western world, it has had time to develop, time to consider and find stability... yet what of the developing societies? It is easy enough to say they should be able to develop without harming human rights, yet development in first world occurred on the basis of exploitation of peoples rights...... !! (I'm not justifying any breaches of human rights by the way, I just think it's interesting to consider things from another perspective).

I believe that there are some human universal rights that should not be affected by culture like the right to live or protect your own life... but the problem is that it s very difficult to set clear boundaries between what is human, or just social

I do agree though that the right to life is not something which can ever really justifiably be taken, yet I think there is much merit to the idea of putting oneself in the context of their community before demanding things of others. What good are those rights if you do not have stability and security within your family and community? I think that would be a good way of solving the excessive and self serving individualistic attitudes in the west. We ought to think more about family and national values and wellbeing, as opposed to blindly serving ourselves. So in that sense, culture should have an influence on human rights in the sense that different cultures may be able to provide meaningful insights to assist in the development of a better system of human rights.

 

[The.Menace]

One thing I think to bear in mind is that it took a very long time for us to develop the current human rights. I mean, of course the concept isnt new, but to actually formally recognise them has been relatively late coming. It took years of colonialism, slavery, war after war, genocide, etc for us to come to this point and say, these are the values we aspire to. So for the western world, it has had time to develop, time to consider and find stability... yet what of the developing societies? It is easy enough to say they should be able to develop without harming human rights, yet development in first world occurred on the basis of exploitation of peoples rights...... !! (I'm not justifying any breaches of human rights by the way, I just think it's interesting to consider things from another perspective).

You have a point there but who said that we, even through our view developed a long time, developed the right way? Noone, after all this time we came up with capitalism, we let others starve etc.

 

[Amara]

You have a point there but who said that we, even through our view developed a long time, developed the right way? Noone, after all this time we came up with capitalism, we let others starve etc.

Indeed, who is to say it developed the right way... afterall it is merely one interpretation of in a diverse field of understanding.

 

[Baukem]

declaration of human rights was written by UK people and other european countries, says enough... lol.

all we need is the ten commendments, every law is based on that anyhow

 

[Swollen_Member]

You have a point there but who said that we, even through our view developed a long time, developed the right way? Noone, after all this time we came up with capitalism, we let others starve etc.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

[MX Red]

I dont think human rights have ever made themselves out to be universal or compulsory. Turkey didnt signed the treaty and thus couldnt be sanctioned under international law for its failure to uphold the treaty (not sure if they have now signed it).

Human Rights have never had devine right, its simply a treaty agreed by many countries...it is of course subjective.

Do I believe that it is more correct than any other regime? to answer that question is itself subjective and would bring the argument into a vicious circul.

-MX

 

[Amara]

I dont think human rights have ever made themselves out to be universal or compulsory. Turkey didnt signed the treaty and thus couldnt be sanctioned under international law for its failure to uphold the treaty (not sure if they have now signed it).

Human Rights have never had devine right, its simply a treaty agreed by many countries...it is of course subjective.

Do I believe that it is more correct than any other regime? to answer that question is itself subjective and would bring the argument into a vicious circul.

-MX

They call it the universal declaration though, thus implying it is and should be applicable to all. Although it is not compulsory to sign the treaty, compliance is virtually ensured through other means. For instance, even though there is a principle of non-interference in regards to the ASEAN Regional Forum, member nations have restricted states such as Burma on account of their bad human rights record. So human rights standards whilst not officially enforceable at face value are imposed by less obvious tactics of political and economic exclusion.

And as for divine right... when it is in some countries enshrined in the consitution or bill or rights, it becomes more than just a subjective belief. It is objective law. And when the principle international body codifies it and states impose it on others (visibly or not), that also generates a kind of objectivity.
(Whether that accords to my original post, I dont know, lol.. that just popped into my head).

 

[MX Red]

They call it the universal declaration though, thus implying it is and should be applicable to all. Although it is not compulsory to sign the treaty, compliance is virtually ensured through other means. For instance, even though there is a principle of non-interference in regards to the ASEAN Regional Forum, member nations have restricted states such as Burma on account of their bad human rights record. So human rights standards whilst not officially enforceable at face value are imposed by less obvious tactics of political and economic exclusion.

And as for divine right... when it is in some countries enshrined in the consitution or bill or rights, it becomes more than just a subjective belief. It is objective law. And when the principle international body codifies it and states impose it on others (visibly or not), that also generates a kind of objectivity.
(Whether that accords to my original post, I dont know, lol.. that just popped into my head).

It may have popped into your head but i dissagree, a subjective believe may contradict a law - no law is objective, change of circumstances would change that law - do we need to point to Americas Camp X-Ray? There is no doubt Americans believe in human rights, but they obviously dont believe in it being universal - laws are wholly rectionary to society, not denontological.

Trying to force a contry like Burma to follow the human right code is one thing, but connecting this to its universal nature is another - since the countries who push for this happily break the human rights laws when they need to, the laws hold no intrisnsic value.

Dont get me wrong i believe in the human rights charter - its just i do not think its a universal orthodoxy that will last the lengthe of time. In this period of hegomony it has been possible to introduce the human rights bill - in times of crisis it will be time to ignore the human rights bill.

(This may have gone right off the track, cant even remember what the origional question was).

-MX

 

[Amara]

It may have popped into your head but i dissagree, a subjective believe may contradict a law - no law is objective, change of circumstances would change that law - do we need to point to Americas Camp X-Ray? There is no doubt Americans believe in human rights, but they obviously dont believe in it being universal - laws are wholly rectionary to society, not denontological.

Trying to force a contry like Burma to follow the human right code is one thing, but connecting this to its universal nature is another - since the countries who push for this happily break the human rights laws when they need to, the laws hold no intrisnsic value.

Dont get me wrong i believe in the human rights charter - its just i do not think its a universal orthodoxy that will last the lengthe of time. In this period of hegomony it has been possible to introduce the human rights bill - in times of crisis it will be time to ignore the human rights bill.

(This may have gone right off the track, cant even remember what the origional question was).

-MX

The theory of human rights is premised on the claim that these rights are universally applicable. That is why they are called human rights and not western rights or caucasian rights... That is what makes the theory what it is and why it has been accepted by so many, it is a theory which can be applied to all. It is all well and good to disagree with that reasoning (as I often do myself), yet that does not detract from the fact that human rights are held out to be universal.

Similarly the law claims to be objective, that is the essence of the criminal justice system. Again, whether you believe that or not is one thing, yet that doesnt negate the fact that the theoretical underpinings of the legal system are built on objectivity and neutrality.

And as for the hegemonic discussion, that was what I was saying. How can these rights be 'universal' when they are dictated by the West? How can there be so-called universal norms when it seems that they are spread by way of manipulation or imposition? And that brings us back to the original question, should the standard and nature of rights be dependant upon factors such as culture, history perhaps even religion so as to overshadow the theoretical claim that our understanding of human rights are universally applicable?

 

[MX Red]

The theory of human rights is premised on the claim that these rights are universally applicable. That is why they are called human rights and not western rights or caucasian rights... That is what makes the theory what it is and why it has been accepted by so many, it is a theory which can be applied to all. It is all well and good to disagree with that reasoning (as I often do myself), yet that does not detract from the fact that human rights are held out to be universal.

Similarly the law claims to be objective, that is the essence of the criminal justice system. Again, whether you believe that or not is one thing, yet that doesnt negate the fact that the theoretical underpinings of the legal system are built on objectivity and neutrality.

And as for the hegemonic discussion, that was what I was saying. How can these rights be 'universal' when they are dictated by the West? How can there be so-called universal norms when it seems that they are spread by way of manipulation or imposition? And that brings us back to the original question, should the standard and nature of rights be dependant upon factors such as culture, history perhaps even religion so as to overshadow the theoretical claim that our understanding of human rights are universally applicable?

For something to be universal it has to be applicable not only to the people, but for all of time - its the same as the claim made by Murdock that the nuclear family is universal, he wasnt only talking of the current situation but of history as a whole. For something to be universal it must cross cultural lines and MUST have intrinsic worth...what ever the theory of human rights may be, it is by no means universal and should'nt be labelled as such...the very fact that some countries do not follow the human rights code itself is proof that it is not universal.

My point with the hegmonic argument is the same as yours, if it is dictated by a higher power (whether religion or government) and in not a natural occurence in society it is not universal, what ever the current orthodoxy in society may be.

I think we agree, except I think your looking for it to be justified in the metaphysical sense - which it certainly cannot be.

-MX

 

[Amara]

For something to be universal it has to be applicable not only to the people, but for all of time - its the same as the claim made by Murdock that the nuclear family is universal, he wasnt only talking of the current situation but of history as a whole. For something to be universal it must cross cultural lines and MUST have intrinsic worth...what ever the theory of human rights may be, it is by no means universal and should'nt be labelled as such...the very fact that some countries do not follow the human rights code itself is proof that it is not universal.

What I am trying to get out of you though is an acceptance that there is a claim to universality by Human Rights theorists. What they meant by that was not uniformity, but universal applicability on account of being 'human.' Therefore it need not transcend all differential features of society as a kind of ethical code. In this sense then, with greater flexibility, some have said that the universality of human rights could lead to a greater appreciation of diversity.. although I dont know about that.

What the Communitarians rebut is the fact that it is not universal and cannot be ... on account of cultural, historic differences... this is the point I am trying to bring out in the thread, that contrary to one line of theoretical understanding, another gives a much different perspective and understanding. It seems you are in line with the communitarians which is good - I'm glad people understand their point which is what I was trying to get people to see - but at least accept that there does exist a large body of theory which maintains the universality of human rights regardless of whether you agree.

It's Universal Human Rights v. Communitarians. We may agree with one side or other but that doesnt mean that the other side doesnt exist.