|
| Should humans have different rights depending on the accident of their birthplace; or do we share enough with people everywhere to support the notion of universal human rights? |
On the global stage we can see the same questions arise in many arenas; perhaps most importantly that of Human Rights. Should we respect cultural traditions that go against our fundamental values, even when one of our fundamental values is respecting other cultures?
So, in terms of Human Rights – are they universal? If so, which ones? The general perception seems to be that ‘the West’ advocates for universal rights, and seems to be encouraging this globally. Many non-Western countries resist – China, famously insists that as there are huge economic, political and cultural difference between countries, a international definition of human rights cannot apply to China. So who is right? Are there universal human rights?
The argument against suggests that as the world is diverse, it is foolish, perhaps even dictatorial, to insist on a single set of norms that apply to everyone. Such an approach might even smack of neo-colonial, and arguably subordinates non-western cultures to Western ideology. According to this approach, we need to value diversity in all it’s manifestations – lack of human rights included.
At the conference such an argument was put to me forcibly, and my own experience suggests that this is not an uncommon sentiment. I want, though, to argue against that relativist approach, and suggest that there are three reasons why this argument fails.
- Even if Human Rights are ‘Western’, that’s no reason they cannot be universal. This ‘it came from out of town’ argument is not really an argument. An idea has to come from somewhere, so to question its origin is not a serious objection. Furthermore, it’s not one raised against great Art, Science, Technology, Language, Philosophy, Maths or any other idea worth knowing. Ideas have to stand on their own merits – and all societies borrow and steal the best ones from each other precisely because the best ones really do. From details like dress and food, to whole world views like Capitalism, Buddhism, Marxism, and Christianity, ideas will spread where there is an appeal. This cannot, in itself, be inherently objectionable, and has to depend on the quality, not the source of an idea (just as we judge people by the quality of their thinking, not where they we born).
- Human Rights are not a Western idea. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have shown that critical elements of Human Rights exist in both Indian and Chinese traditions (religious toleration, for example, was advocated for by Buddhist emperor Ashoka in third to second century B.C.E.). The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights came from many nations in 1948 – including Egypt, China and France.
- Even as a factual thesis, the neo-colonial charge runs into problems. I am neither politician nor historian, but it does not seem to me that Western powers have ever foisted human rights on the unwilling. In the last century Tagore, Gandhi and Nehru all protested at precisely the lack of human rights under Britain; and Gandhi sought a society built on notion of Human Rights that could be found in Indian traditions as he interpreted them. The framing of the South African constitution says much the same thing – and it is very striking that in 1966 it forbade discrimination on grounds of race, gender and sexual orientation – many decades ahead of some Western countries. And the United States (usually the target of ‘imperialist’ objections) has not even ratified most treaties (see footnote for two shocking facts). The idea that the West is trying to foist Human Rights norms on an unwilling world is simply not true.
The upshot of all this is summarised well by philosopher Martha Nussbaum, whose ideas I am drawing on here: The Human Rights agenda upholds the equal worth and dignity of all persons. The idea of equal worth is not especially Western, and it is not imperial. It is, instead, the ally of the weak against the strong. That seems to me to be a strong statement of values, and one that sails well between the Scylla of diversity and the Charybdis of universal social justice. There are some immediate questions (which rights should we have? how can we distinguish between genuine obligations and actions that are good to perform but not obligatory?); but it provides a platform for us to be proud of our Mission and the values we espouse – they are of more than local importance.
Footnote: USA and Human Rights
- The Convention for the Rights of the Child has been ratified by every member of the United Nations except the United States, South Sudan and Somalia.
- The nations that have not ratified the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) are the United States, Iran, South Sudan, Tonga, Palau, Somalia.
References
Nussbaum, Martha C. (2011) Creating Capabilities, Harvard University Press
