Reading #5 - The Universalism of Human Rights

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) = founding modern document; presupposes applicability to all human beings.
Logical grounding: universal human traits ⇒ universal basic entitlements ⇒ universally recognized rights.
Initial philosophical puzzle: if rights are absolute, can there be degrees ("scale of absoluteness")?
• Absolutism already creates tension; universalism raises an even deeper challenge.
Key question framed both descriptively and normatively:
• "Should" human rights be relatively conceived, interpreted, applied?
• Descriptive: observe actual practices/values worldwide.
• Normative: ask whether morality itself can be universal.

Individuals disagree: a mother killing for her child → saint vs. murderer.
Societal divergence: eating with one’s hands
• Gauchè in most Western societies; perfectly natural in Ethiopia.
Religious splits:
• Judaism & Christianity ban polygamy; Islam & Mormonism permit it.
Conclusion: extensive, observable variability (cultural relativity) refutes any claim of an existing de-facto universal consensus.

Chapter-3 link: universalism ↔ absolutism ↔ objectivism ↔ realism (morals are $\text{“really there”}$ , apply to all, discoverable by all).
Cultural relativism (descriptive) ≠ moral relativism (normative).
• True moral relativist: no universal good/bad; only culture-specific right/wrong.
Implication for human-rights justification:
• Legal-positivist, religious, philosophical routes available.
• Philosophical route grounded in moral theory (utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc.).
• Moral relativism ⇒ human-rights relativism; moral realism ⇒ human-rights realism.
Observation: diversity of cultural contexts makes relativism seem natural, apparently "compromising" universality.

UDHR barely recognizes cultural difference; mentions "cultural rights" only once, still cast as universal.
1947: Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) submits critique while UDHR drafting in progress. • Double credo: respect for individual personality and respect for cultures. – Emphasizes that humans always function within societies. • Consequences:
1. Personality realized through culture ⇒ respecting individuals entails respecting cultures.
2. Science refutes qualitative ranking of cultures.
3. Standards/values themselves are culture-relative; any universal code must avoid privileging any single culture.
  • Paradox: Attempts at universal codes must resist embedding particular moral codes – leading to "extreme cultural relativism".
  • Memorable line: "What is held to be a human right in one society may be regarded as anti-social by another." (AAA, $1947$ , p. 542).
Tension identified: desire for world-wide standards of freedom & justice vs. assertion "man is free only when he lives as his society defines freedom" (p. 543).
AAA’s final plea: UDHR must include "the right of men to live in terms of their own traditions" ⇒ a clarion call for relativism.

Governments frequently invoke local "tradition" to excuse policies conflicting with orthodox human-rights norms.
Danger: AAA-style tolerance → doorway to opportunistic abuse.

Proponents (e.g., China, other E/SE Asian authorities) argue:
• Distinct moral/cultural foundations ⇒ different conception of human nature, community duty, rights.
Two analytic levels:
1. Content-level disagreements:
  – Individual vs. community primacy; political vs. economic rights; sovereignty vs. intervention.
2. Philosophical-level disagreement:
  – Western view: human rights are universal; some Asian leaders: rights are culture-specific.
Frequent "Asian" claims:
• Community prioritized over individual – antidote to Western individualism.
• Sovereignty → rejection of foreign (often Western) human-rights criticism.
• Economic & social rights (food, shelter) precede political freedoms; Chinese White Paper $1991$ : fundamental needs = "eating properly and dressing warmly".
Universalist rejoinders:
1. Practical inconsistency: authoritarian regimes adopt Western market principles when convenient, deny individual rights when power threatened.
2. Genetic fallacy: origin of a moral norm ≠ indicator of its universal relevance; freedom of expression or anti-torture norms valid regardless of birthplace.
3. Necessity of minimal shared norms (e.g., genocide, slavery, racism = wrong).
4. Public-reason discourse standards: evidence, coherence, consistency ⇒ gradual, revisable consensus without embracing relativism.

Extreme poles: AAA $1947$ (unequivocal relativism) vs. Xiaorong Li’s robust universalism.
Question: Can we adopt moderate stances?
• Use philosophy to nuance universalism/relativism rather than choose exclusivity.

"Egregious evil" exemplar:
– Take undeniable wrong (torture).
– Its wrongness regardless of perpetrator ⇒ universal prohibition ⇒ acknowledgment even by violators.
"Horrific cultural practice" exemplar:
– Point to practice like female genital mutilation (FGM).
– Appeal to presumed universal abhorrence; problem: practice isn’t universally abhorred ⇒ argument risks circularity.
Philosophically robust strategy (preview):
– Aims to integrate cultural diversity and universal norms via reasoned justification (text ends mid-development).

debating universality shapes interventions, international law, aid conditionality.
Ethical caution: relativism may protect cultural identity but can mask oppression.
Universalism offers global yardsticks yet must remain open to dialogue & revision.

$\text{UDHR}$ – Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( $1948$ ).
Cultural Relativism – Descriptive fact of differing cultural norms.
Moral Relativism – Normative claim: no universal moral truths.
Moral Universalism / Realism – Moral truths exist & apply to all humans.
Genetic Fallacy – Judging claim’s validity by its origin rather than merit.
"Asian Values" – Political narrative emphasizing community, order, economic rights over individual civil liberties.

Trace how descriptive observations ("people differ") morph into normative positions ("therefore no universal rights").
Memorize AAA’s three culture-centered claims; contrast with universalist counters (inconsistency, genetic fallacy, minimal shared beliefs).
Understand Waldron’s three argumentative strategies; recognize pros/cons.
When writing essays: always distinguish level of analysis (content vs. philosophical) & specify whether critique targets practice or principle.