Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
ethical and cultural relativism
stances on cultural relativism
stances on cultural relativism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: ethical and cultural relativism
1. Identify the three fundamental characteristics of human rights. Discuss the ways in which these three characteristics can advance the global human rights agenda or significantly undermine the global human rights agenda. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), human rights “are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination”. The three fundamental characteristics of human rights are universal, inalienable, and indivisible. Human rights are universal because they apply to every human being regardless of their origin, economic or social status, and religion, among others. Inalienable refers to rights that once are given to a person cannot be taken away. And human rights are indivisible meaning either all rights are given or none of them. In other words, human being have to have all their rights, not just a few of them (all or nothing), since “the improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others”. The three fundamental characteristics of human rights, universal, inalienable, and indivisible, can advance or undermined the global human rights agenda. One way in which these characteristic can undermined the global human rights agenda is through Cultural Relativism. According to Diana Ayton-Shenker, cultural relativism is “assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives” . In other words, for a cultural relativist, universal human rights basically does not mean anything since depending on the culture that you belong, your rights would be different. This significantly undermined
In response to the recent failure of the international community to prevent the famine crisis in the Horn of Africa since July 2011, Suzanne Dvorak the chief executive of Save the Children wrote that, “We need to provide help now. But we cannot forget that these children are wasting away in a disaster that we could - and should - have prevented” she added, “The UN estimates that every $1 spent in prevention saves $7 in emergency spending.” (Dvorak, 2011).
This journal article, “Cultural Relativist and Feminist Critiques of International Human Rights - Friends or Foes?” by Oonagh Reitman seeks to rouse discussion about the similarities between two critiques of universal human rights: cultural relativists and feminists, despite the antagonistic position both groups tend to take against each other. In the beginning, he lays out the basis of critique of international human rights by each camp. Cultural relativists argue that the universal human rights which are earned simply ‘by virtue of being human’ (Donnelly in Reitman 1997, 100) are insensitive to the diversity of culture. Feminists, on the other hand, criticize that universal human rights guarantee only men’s rights and that ‘gender equality and freedom from discrimination for women is given a low priority in the international arena’ (Reitman 1997, 100).
In the simplest of terms, human rights are those that undoubtedly belong to each person. These rights, from a philosophical standpoint, have certain characteristics that distinguish them from any other. According to Richard Wasserstrom, author of the article, "Rights, Human Rights, and Racial Discrimination," human rights embody several characteristics. Primarily, and perhaps obviously, human rights are those that belong solely to humans (Wasserstrom 631). Moreover, Wasserstrom...
Human rights are the inborn and universal rights of every human being regardless of religion, class, gender, culture, age, ability or nationality, that ensure basic freedom and dignity. In order to live a life with self-respect and dignity basic human rights are required.
Indeed, human right is never just a legal matter as it also involves moral principles to justify its inalienable and non-transferable status. UDHR preamble states that human right is the “recognition of the inherent dignity”. That means we are entitled to human rights because we have inherent values to be pursued and realized. Human rights are originated in ourselves, but not conferred by law or others. If a society does not recognize those aforementioned justifications, human rights would be unsupported and a...
Humanitarian Intervention Hypothesis: That despite the incidents where humanitarian interventions have proved seemingly unsuccessful, they are, nonetheless, a vital tool in alleviating the human suffering that so plagues contemporary society. The post-Cold war world is one that has been riddled with conflict, suffering and war. In the face of such times, the issue of humanitarian intervention and about who, when and how it should be employed, has become hotly debated. While some critics declare this kind of intervention to be a violation of national sovereignty, others believe that relief efforts aimed at ending human suffering are perfectly justifiable. 7.
On December 10th 1948, the General Assembly adopted a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration, although not legally binding, created “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations.to promote respect for those rights and freedoms” (Goodhart, 379). However, many cultures assert that the human rights policies outlined in the declaration undermine cultural beliefs and practices. This assertion makes the search for universal human rights very difficult to achieve. I would like to focus on articles 3, 14 and 25 to address how these articles could be modified to incorporate cultural differences, without completely undermining the search for human rights practices.
When considering the concepts of human rights and state sovereignty, the potential for conflict between the two is evident. Any humanitarian intervention by other actors within the international system would effectively constitute a violation of the traditional sovereign rights of states to govern their own domestic affairs. Thus, the answer to this question lies in an examination of the legitimacy and morality of humanitarian intervention. While traditionally, the Westphalian concept of sovereignty and non-intervention has prevailed, in the period since the Cold War, the view of human rights as principles universally entitled to humanity, and the norm of enforcing them, has developed. This has led to the 1990’s being described as a ‘golden
Proponents of human rights argue that the concept’s universality rests in its non-discriminatory character- human rights are meant for every human being- rich and poor, white and black, men and women, young and old, leaders and followers, elites and illiterate, etc- and are all treated equally.
Representatives of the human rights movement claim that the contemporary canon of human rights forms a indivisible and interdependent system of norms so that it is improper for governments to pick and choose among human rights those which they will honor while interpreting other human rights as optional, dispensable, non-obligatory, or even as "unreal." But the notion of the indivisibility of human rights has come under attack in recent years by some Asian governments which have claimed that the contemporary canon of human rights represents "Western values" which are in many respects inconsistent with "Asian values." At the same time, some Western governments, in particular the United States of America, have failed to ratify several of the covenants dealing with economic, social, and cultural rights, claiming that the rights represented in these instruments are merely "aspirational."
Ensuring that all members of society are taken care of and are treated respectfully is crucial to ensuring the well being of society as a whole. To say that those less fortunate should be left to fend for themselves, or that it is not our responsibility as citizens and responsible members of society to assist those in need of help is simply selfish. How would you feel if you were the one in need of assistance? We the people that make up society must contribute our time, resources and effort to help others who are less privileged and more susceptible to sickness due to their living conditions and the situation that they are stuck in. Ultimately, society stands to benefit when we take care of those members of society that are in need of shelter, food, financial assistance etc. Furthermore, in doing so, we are also keeping our community safe by eliminating the need for those less fortunate to turn to crime as a way to feed themselves and their family. One can only be pushed so far until self-preservation becomes the most important factor to a person, thus pushing those who are hungry to resort to stealing, robbing and other such crimes to survive.
[online] Available from: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?year=2000&country= 0& region = 0& type = 0& theme = 0> [Accessed 2 March 2011]. Charney, E., (1999) Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell.
The role that globalization plays in spreading and promoting human rights and democracy is a subject that is capable spurring great debate. Human rights are to be seen as the standards that gives any human walking the earth regardless of any differences equal privileges. The United Nations goes a step further and defines human rights as,
The next, major international business issue is human rights. In many nations today basic human rights are not respected. In much of the developed world are basics rights are taken for granted such as freedom of speech, or freedom of movement. It is often questioned by the international business world if we should...
The universal declaration of human rights declared that all people have equal rights, regardless of race, gender, religion, language, culture, birth status, national origin, or opinion. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups. (ohchr.org) The universality of human rights is a concept that allows everyone to have the same basic human rights no matter where the location. If that concept is true then why are people being tortured and ostracized. Why are people still afraid of going against their leaders, fearing that they will be found and killed. It is because some leaders