Essay: The Dichotomy Of Universalism And Relativism

The Dichotomy of universalism and Relativism

“A global citizen is someone who identifies with being part of an emerging world community and whose actions contribute to building this community’s values and practices.” According to Global Citizens Initiative, a nonprofit global social enterprise, this is what it means to be a global gitizen. It is necessary to understand the defining factors of a global citizen in order to understand Johansson Dahre’s quarrels about the human rights discussion. Dahre argues that there is no middle ground between universalism and cultural relativism. Thorough analysis and critique of this dichotomy manifests a divergent human rights theory, Relative universalism. Dahre’s suggestion that Relative universalism

It is important to understand cultural relativism and universalism by definition for this assessment to understand why relative universalism is simply a reclassification, and how it fails to facilitate further innovation. Both quotes from the World Conference of Human Rights, which were previously used as one of Dahre’s supporting points, say that the UDHR is universal. Subsequently, the conference also stated that external factors such as culture, religion, and other particularities, “Must be borne in mind”. Comparing these two defining quotes to Dahre’s Relative universalism shows a striking similarity. Relative universalism is said to be the integration of universalism and relativism without trying to find “Some moral space in-between”. What Dahre believes to be the solution already exists in the fundamentals in the relationship between relativism and universalism. The difference is that Dahre essentially argues to stop the pursuit of a middle ground. When referring to the “middle ground” it is interpreted as being the solution of the dichotomy between culture and universal human rights. Both perspectives, Dahre’s and the current dichotomy, have the same goal of balancing the two. Dahre’s solution in contradiction admits what universalists wont, that the pursuit of a middle ground does not exist. Although Dahre seems a bit monotonous in his assertions of