Universalism vs Cultural relativism Flashcards
The moral structure of human rights
An interest fundamental to all people –> Standard threats to the interest –> Moral duties to protect the interest against the threats –> Feasibility of the protection.
The human rights movement is to remove or neutralize the actions that threaten the ability of individuals to live a life of dignity. Human rights impose obligations to protect fundamental interests that all human being have.
Legal philosophy and human rights: Orthodox understanding of Human Rights
Old: HRs as given (Natural law tradition)
New: HRS as agreed upon (Legal positivism: The rights are the ones that we create (man-made) and they stop whenever they say we stop. Means that they can vary from context to context).
Canada vs. Saudi Arabia: Universalist vs Cultural Relativist
Obstacles people face in Canada as they try to live a life of dignity are different from those faced by people in Saudi Arabia. Universalist: Despite the fact that the obstacles are different, the tool we use to neutralize them will be the same. Cultural relativist: One tool is optimal for threats in Canada, and another for Saudi Arabia, so we need to incorporate cultural sensitivity and assign different standards for different cultural contexts.
The AAA 1947 statement of the UDHR
“The rights of Man in the Twentieth Century cannot be circumscribed by the culture, or be dictated by the aspirations, of any single people” –> this would “lead to frustration, not realization, of the personalities of vast numbers of human beings.”
Criticizing the universally of it.
Should there be universal standards of human rights? Cultural relativist
No notion of human rights be pre-cultural –> Every standard will reflect one culture or another –> cultural imperialism (if you make a standard universal, you will engage in culture imperialism). Norms shaped by different cultures cannot be assessed against each other because each culture validates its norms according to its own values (Different standards exist because different cultures exist with different practices).
Should there be universal standards of human rights? Universalist response
Cultures are constantly being contested, especially from within. What about Civil/{penal Codes in multi-cultural countries? Almost all societies are multicultural, but they have laws that apply to all of them (relativists would say it’s not a good idea to have a single law). Even if the human right standard is shaped by culture its legitimacy need not depend on the authority of that culture –> ration, multi-cultural deliberation –> cultures are not homogenous or morally infallible. What makes it important is how it applies in the world and how it neutralizes threats in allowing people to live a life of dignity.
Should there be a universal standards of human rights?
No notion of human rights can be pre-cultural –> every standard will reflect one culture or another –> cultural imperialism. Relativists would say that tolerance and moral diversity precludes universal standards of behaviour. Universalists would respond that culture relativism validates intolerant predispositions towards others if these reflect cultural norms –> only a transcultural principle of tolerance can undermine the validity of intolerance.
A way forward? Three levels of abstraction
- A generic formulation of a human right –> the right not to be tortured
- Interpretation of a specific right –> What counts as “torture”?
- Implementation of a specific right –> How should torture be prevented?
A different way forward: Idea of the common denomintaor
What is the notion of dignity going to be in one context vs the other. You take the elements that are common in both, and focus on those elements and the threats to those elements. Come up with human rights standard that will work on the shared and narrow definition of dignity. Works well in theory, not sure how it would work in practice. For this to work there should be many commonalities.
