Human Rights Are Universal

Argue for or against the normative claim that human rights are universal.
The topic of whether human rights are universal, will be critically analysed and debated, in relation to understanding what it means to have rights, cultures and moral perspectives in a multicultural world today. Human rights are necessary and can be divided into political and moral rights, which can allow a more open view towards accepting differing systems and traditions. However, this raises a few concerns, as to whether they can be considered completely universal. My standing point on this argument is that, human rights can universally share a few rights which are based on morals, however, political rights are difficult to generalise beyond borders since each country …show more content…
A human right is a claim that demands respect; dominates; gives structure to systems; is objectively valid; instils duties; and gives humans power to certain freedoms. The term fundamental connotes to legal rights being necessary to form the core root of society. Universal accounts for all people, cultures, religions and countries, where there is an absence of ethnocentrism and discrimination. These three terms put together is showing that human rights dominate over other rights when they can be applied on any human being regardless of disabilities, status or wealth. These rights form the basis through which humans can lead a minimally good life only if applied. The question is whether universal rights are important. In a way they are relevant because it shows that there is equal treatment towards all, so anyone can employ rights for their own benefit and comfort. One major concern that stands out is, cultures may become homogenous if only universal rights are employed, and if they are imposed on cultures that do not share similar basis, there will be a clash and opposition towards universalism. For example, rights to life, welfare, participation, are basic, and can be generalised. Each right is connected to another for instance, right to life is connected to another person 's right not to kill; right to life is also connected to having the freedom to access …show more content…
Cultures do not have rights but moral codes. In order to fit into modern society, they must accept the notion of rights even though it has a western origin. Cultures can exchange rights with each other, making them unique. Instead of seeing them as imposing, we must learn to see them as improving and developing systems. This does question as to which rights should be universalised. I can also see that rights are flawed. Even if rights are made universal, people have the freedom to deny them and act according to how they wish; how can you impose rights (which are supposed to be for human benefit) on someone who does not wish to follow it? Rights are flawed because it it dependent on humans- if they are not respected then it 's meaning and point of existence is lost. For example, terrorist groups in a country with universal rights, can either deny why they need rights when they don’t follow the system; or they can use these rights for their own gain. For instance, for the right to no slavery, they may say we don’t want to follow the government because it enslaves people and we have the right to freedom of thought; rights can be interpreted in many ways. Some may not acknowledge universal rights because they have religious laws. So there are always going to be oppositions because of differing moral views. Therefore, the rights which have a moral basis can be universalised