NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY

AND RESEARCH IN LAW

SUBMITTED TO-EKTA SINGH

SUBMITTED BY-VIJAY ROHAN KRISHNA

SEMESTER- 1

SECTION- A

ROLL No.-543
Can and Should Human Rights be universal? Discuss in the context of issue of cultural
relativism.

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human
behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. They
are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently
entitled simply because she or he is a human being,” and which are "inherent in all human
beings” regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other
status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal and
they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They require empathy and
the rule of law and impose an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others.
They should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific
circumstances; for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment,
torture, and execution.

The universality of human rights emerged during the 20th century with the UN Declaration of
Human rights on the belief that the basic values and principles underlying the concept of
human rights are of a universal nature. These values and principles included the concept of
individual liberty and freedoms, the belief in democracy and political rights, the
acknowledgement of social and economic right. Prior to these the idea of human rights has
been restricted to class of individuals depending on status. The development of human rights
up to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is often described in terms of a
progression of bills, statutes and revolutions in the political history of Europe and North
America. If the field of human rights is seen as being of western genesis, then this can be, and
has been, used to argue that human rights are an essentially western idea which should not
and cannot be universally applied, an argument known as cultural relativism.

Cultural Relativism is the view that moral or ethical systems, which vary from culture to
culture, are all equally valid and no one system is really “better” than any other. This is based
on the idea that there is no ultimate standard of good or evil, so every judgment about right
and wrong is a product of society. Therefore, any opinion on morality or ethics is subject to
the cultural perspective of each person. Ultimately, this means that no moral or ethical system
can be considered the “best,” or “worst,” and no particular moral or ethical position can
actually be considered “right” or “wrong”. Different cultures believe different things. One
doesn’t need to be an anthropologist to see that the morality, ritual, and religion vary more
and more the further you travel, no matter what direction. In fact, these differences are what
define these groups of people. And not only are these values what organize the lives of
everyone, but they are also what lay the meaning behind those lives – whether political,
cultural or religious in origin. The issue that cultural relativists have with the universality of
human rights is about the western world imposing their idea of what is right upon the rest of
the world and deciding for themselves, what can be considered right or wrong. The
multitudes of societies that exist in the world today, each having different customs and
opinions, cannot be imposed to the same set of rules defining “normal” human behavior.
Cultural relativism often creates confusion when debating about it. It refers to a view that all
cultures are equal in a particular setting and universal values become a secondary matter
when examining cultural norms. If the culture accepts genital mutilation, then no outside
principle should overrule the cultural norm. Moreover, the idea about absolutist cultural
relativism which evaluates that “whatever a culture says is right, is right for those in that
culture” I perceive as totally outdated. It is worth noting that culture changes at any time.

Relativism of culture against human rights should not be underestimated wherein states or
groups often use culture to justify controversial practices. For example, in many African
countries female genital mutilation is widely prevalent. There are several criticisms about
cultural relativism in which few societies or individuals believe that their values are binding
simply or even primarily because they happen to be widely endorsed within their culture, and
there is no space for moral learning or adaptation except within closed cultures, moral
infallibility of culture, gender intolerant etc.

For instance, in Germany in August 1997, an 18 years old woman was burnt to death by her
father for refusing to marry a man he had chosen. The German court gave the father a
reduced sentence, saying he was practicing his culture and religion. In Iran, women and girls
are forcibly veiled under threat of imprisonment and lashes, and cultural relativists say that it
is their religion and must be respected. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive.

The usual criticisms of cultural relativism focus on “Westerners” trying to impose their views
on “non-westerners”. It is true that the idea of human rights first originated from the west but
so did other things like technology and industrialization. The non-western states have not
raised any arguments rejecting technology transfer; in fact they push for it and claim it as
their right to development.

I would like to recommend that cultural relativism should be given a critical view and not be
given a legitimate priority in overcoming human rights. People should not be forced to accept
a tradition or culture they are not willing to involve in. States should take affirmative
measures in punishing those that are involved in forcing people in such practice.

In conclusion, there are points in cultural practices where conflict may exist between human
rights and cultural values. In some instances there needs to be positive actions to eradicate
such violations while in some there needs to cohesion and reduction in claims to build the
bonds of community. The cultural values on their however does not form the thrust of the
universalism. It is more focused on States and respect for human rights and individual
freedom. Cultural relativism often represents a major challenge to the concept of human
rights. Arguing against cultural norms may seem like a fool’s errand. For instance, the right
to participate in a culturally accepted form of domestic violence should not prevail over
human rights in promoting dignity and freedom from cruel treatment.

I strongly believe that Human Rights should be universal, and there is need for the acceptance
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).