Human Rights Are Universal

Better Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    In this scenario, institutions that are supposed to promote without discrimination, a social contract that supports social cooperation based on equal assignments of right, duties and liberties are choosing to promote a philosophy that above all, works to the benefit of the majority. In doing so, they are making a conscious choice to increase the advantages for wealthier citizens which impact negatively on the opportunities, choices and rights of citizens living in hardship. These hardships ultimately result in a lack of liberty, which should be the fundamental right of every citizen and responsibility of any institution. Hence, even if the Utilitarian theory is conceived as generally bringing greater wellbeing , it is not a fair system. It is from this lack of fairness and its consequences on lack of opportunities and rights that Rawls seeks to identify an alternative theory, one that acknowledges the principle of difference, and ensures a fair distribution of rights and duties that would compensate the weakest members of society from hardships beyond their control and therefore bring them to an equal status with other…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    129) If we look at these problems from the communitarian way, you eliminate the shortcomings of simply choosing for an individual or addressing only maximizing the welfare of a choice. That is what is taking place right now. If you have a different opinion than myself, you somehow feel you have the right to interject what I am doing instead of ignoring me, and letting me go on my way. You need to look at the community as a whole, and decide what is in their best interest, not in one individual. By doing this you provide freedom, but in a sense that is the right decision for everyone, or at least what should be best for everyone.…

    • 1287 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He also reckons we need freedom to create an enlightened society and achieve happiness. However, how difficult is it to uphold the moral law? To answer this question from a Kantian point of view, any action performed must be done from a duty to the highest moral law in order to have any moral worth. What determines whether an action has moral worth or not is the maxim. Freedom ends when your choices begin to affect other people and morality is universal.…

    • 1793 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He contests relativism by stating that such a view is ridiculous primarily because of the wide range of immoral acts “X” could possibly be. He gives the practice of human sacrifice as an example and calls into question the dubiousness of moral relativity in such a situation. According to moral relativity even if “we” were to disagree on such a practice, if that society practices the act (Bernard citing the Ashanti tribe) approves of it, then we have no place in interfering with the tribe. Williams also points out that any society must have a sort of universal moral standard for it to even exist. He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Negative Equality

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Negative Liberty Should Be Pursued Although liberty and equality harbour contrasting ideals, one concept can essentially deliver the provisions of both by prioritizing one over the other. Of the various forms of equality, modern day civilization thrives for equality of rights. This brand of equality endeavors to create a society where all citizens are equal and provided with the same opportunities. Though not entirely different, liberty upholds the belief that each person should have freedom to do as they please. Specifically, negative liberty demands freedom sans barriers, obstacles, constraints and other socially and politically bindings that can restrict a person’s autonomy.…

    • 1164 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Thomas Paine elaborates on the idea of positive duties while John Locke explains negative duties. Positive rights can be as simple as paying taxes in order to receive universal healthcare. In contrast, negative duties are required so that all other humans may possess rights by limiting the magnitude of your own to respect others’. An example of this would be limiting my free speech by disallowing hateful rhetoric to it in order to respect your rights to…

    • 1212 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What Is Moral Rights?

    • 1082 Words
    • 5 Pages

    3. Moral rights are related, an individual’s rights can be defined in terms of their duties others have towards that individual. Duties are moral obligations. For instance, a person has a moral right to do something then it is the moral duty of the other person not to interfere. Moral rights provide a person to be free to choose to do whatever they choose to do.…

    • 1082 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Divine Command Theory

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages

    This view states that “moral standards are relative to cultures or societies.” (Shafer-Landau, 293) I like this view because I believe that people should be able to live their lives according to their own moral standards. Cultural groups and societies should be able to dictate what is good and what is bad on their own. A moral code should not have to be validated by a god, people can be the authors of morality. The views of Cultural Relativism are very similar to sovereignty. Living in a world filled with many cultures it would be impossible to create one uniform moral code that could be accepted by everyone.…

    • 840 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Universal Law Case Study

    • 1316 Words
    • 6 Pages

    A person that lives in abundance, or has a privileged life is morally obligated to help others, assisting in every aspect that is able to. It is true that every person is free. But we all know that there are circumstances out of our control that make us more vulnerable. The people that are in the position to help others should be held accountable for their welfare. If we ask the question about helping others is a universal law of nature, the answer is yes.…

    • 1316 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Nonetheless, this puts those who are physically and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged in a detrimental position because all the wealth would accumulate in the upper half of the society. To counteract natural phenomenon of varying advantages, Rawls presents compensatory principles that buffers the injustice that can occur. There are two overarching principles of justice that are to be chosen by a free society. The first principle is that “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with…(those of) others” (Rawls 53). The basic liberties are those that ensure that every person, even the individuals at the lowest point in society holds rights and have some opportunity of move up or down in the social hierarchy..…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics