While diversity of belief and value across cultures is a consideration when looking at the compatibility of multiculturalism and human rights, there is the argument that it should have little actual effect on the universality of rights across the globe. Human rights as a concept are developed and put into practice in order to make the world a seemingly better place, they are not meant to take the world at face value because that would render their position redundant. The argument here is that just because certain cultures believe a way of behaviour, such as slavery, to be acceptable, does not mean human rights should have to adapt to this belief and not be a universal doctrine. ‘If we have good grounds for ascribing certain rights to human beings indifferently there is no reason why we should forfeit or modify our commitments to those rights merely because others do not share it’ (Peter Jones, 2001). Human rights are a concept that is meant to fight for equality, not bend and shape so that the morality and concepts of all cultures no matter how unfair are catered for, ‘Morality is the custom of one's country and the current feeling of one's peers. Cannibalism is moral in a cannibal country.’(Samuel Butler, 1890). Here the argument is that not all morality is on the same level, human rights should be universal as if there are good grounds in one country for that right to be applicable to all then it should go that all human beings despite obvious diversity should have that right defended for them.
While looking at the idea of universal rights it is necessary to go back to the idea of collectivism versus individualism. While it is true that human rights as a concept are put in place to fight for equality globally. There is the argument that for western individualism to override eastern collectivism within rights is a very arrogant western concept, which doesn’t take into account the debate between ‘considering the individual as an individual human being or as a member of a community’(Donders, 2002). In the last paragraph this essay questioned whether all morality had the same standing and whether all view points of cultures should be considered, concluding that certain cultural stances should not have to be accepted within human rights. While this can be true in certain cases, morality and ideology is not as simple as that concept. ‘Those who believe in human rights may have some justification for thinking as they do, but so too do the many adherents of many other doctrines to be found across the globe’ (Jones, 2001). The argument here is that Human rights can not be compatible with multiculturalism when it takes one view of morality i.e. the west over another i.e. the east, and holds the former in higher acclaim. It is clear that a large amount of basic rights for example the ‘right to cultural identity [has] an individual and collective dimension.’(Donders, 2002). Universal Human rights can not be compatible with multiculturalism if the opinions of particular cultures are overlooked entirely.
On the other hand it is entirely possible to argue that certain human rights are fundamental to all humans and compatible to all cultures despite diversity of morality and ideology. The basic needs of humans such as the right to life liberty and security of persons or the right for all humans to be free and equal in dignity, it is argued cross the borders of separate cultures and are entirely separate of any multicultural allowances arguments. ‘Differences in diet, dress, leisure pursuits, literature, musical forms do not prevent our claiming that the human beings that exhibit those differences possess a uniform set of rights as human beings.’(Jones, 2001). The argument here is that just because human beings have cultural difference does not mean that some forfeit their right as humans to the basic wants and needs that Human rights provide for them. In this sense human rights in their most basic form are compatible as a universal doctrine with the multicultural society.
While the last paragraph makes a good point regarding basic human rights, its does not take into consideration, rights which some consider not as basic, such as the economic, social and cultural rights within the doctrine. The human rights act states that all humans should have a ‘Right to social security and realisation of economic, social and cultural rights,’ (BBC world, accessed 2006) this includes rights to education, healthcare and property. This type of Economic compatibility does not work as well as the basic human rights mentioned earlier. A free market for example giving everybody realisation of economic rights, is not the system of all countries and many argue neither should it have to be. Here we get back to the argument of different focuses of different rights for different cultures. This debate was reinforced with the cold war, economically between the idea of capitalism and the idea of communism. One economic belief should not have to take precedence over another when both have relative high and low points. Furthermore economic, social and cultural rights should not be undermined in the agenda when questioning human rights compatibility which is often the case. As David Beetham discussed in his lecture on ‘universality and cultural difference in human rights’ denying economic rights a legitimate place of discussion within the debate, challenges the integrity of the of the human rights agenda and challenges its universal applicability.
Many however see the universality of civil and political rights and economic social and cultural rights to be just as important. The point here is ‘to exercise our civil and political rights, we have to be alive to do so, and we have to possess the education and basic resources to understand and defend them’ (Beetham, 2000). Whatever cultural rights we are defending, social rights such as education are needed, this is not to say that all application of these rights has to be the same. This is where the difference between the idea of universality of human rights and universalism in humans rights is important. While universality of Human rights can be argued to be compatible with multiculturalism, this does not go to say that the interpretation and application of human rights is. There are no states today that claim to be in violation of human rights laws, however the different interpretations, while in some cases does lead to greater cultural compatibility between the human rights, can still be a large problem. ‘The UN commission seem to have concentrated more on the universality of human rights and not necessarily on the means of identifying a universal value for achieving the rights’ (Baderin, 2003). The point here is different states will interpret the varying Human rights treaties in different ways, usually based on their own ideologies and moral standing, therefore in practice Human rights being compatible in a multicultural world, as a universal doctrine is difficult to measure.
While indeed the argument of different interpretation is valid, Simon Caney comments on his paper human rights, compatibility and diverse cultures that the same outcome can be had despite differing opinions or motives. This is known as rawls concept of an ‘overlapping consensus.’ States throughout the world are made up from a number of diverse cultures and this means different opinions as to how to go about developing rights for its people. However just because states think in different ways, does not mean that universality and compatibility of Human rights can not be agreed upon. ‘Overlapping consensus’ ‘both recognises the radical diversity of views and also does not make the mistake that this precludes agreement’ (Caney, 2001). This argument to put it simply is saying while yes it is true that humans are very diverse in nature from one another, this should not be a barrier to consensus of human rights.
This argument does however fall short, when Rawls talked about, this overlapping consensus, ‘he outlined the political factors (including a shared political system) that helped to bring it into existence’ (Caney, 2001). The world does not just feature one political system, while democracy is the most accepted form of state rule; other systems including communism and fascism are included within the makeup. This difference effects global consensus and compatibility. The human rights legislation states that all humans have an entitlement to choose and be involved in their own government. This again comes back to the argument of the western views against the eastern. Some argue that it is not right for the western world to impose its opinions of governmental systems upon the eastern world. In fact this is not just confined to an east west debate, the cold war and Russian communism brought up the same argument. With the conflicting political systems acting within this multicultural framework it is difficult to see how universal human rights can exist when the basic political set up of the states is so conflicting.
Despite this, it is important to recognise that Political systems and rules within a state do not change or adapt necessarily the basic rights and freedoms which the human beings within that state should be given. Human rights are not a pick and choose doctrine based on the morality or ideology that certain culture or group may possess, they are there in theory to provide a better and higher functioning world. The multicultural compatibility debate is some would argue redundant. Instead what is needed is ‘ more analysis of how rights actually relate to ethical traditions rather than a priori assertion that rights cohere only with the values of western societies.’(Caney, 2001). Essentially what this view point is saying, is that, instead of focusing on how human rights do not and can not be comparable in a multicultural society the focus should be on how they can and should fit alongside and shape everyones cultures for the better.
In conclusion, this essay has considered many different arguments, cultures in the world are in many cases conflicting and the diversities in the world can make it difficult to have a universal consensus, especially when it comes to personal rights. While the western bias is a consideration to make, the human rights doctrine should not have to make allowances for differences in morality. When it considers a right to be fundamental and important, this should mean it is universal. The function of Human rights is to improve the world and the way it does this is not to make allowances for customs and traditions that should not be considered acceptable. For the time being it is a virtual impossibility to make economic compatibility a reality, as the differing political systems do not allow for this. However this does not mean that human rights in general are not compatible with multiculturalism. We are all humans, with basic wants and needs, being assured these wants and needs does not take away anything form the differing cultures on the contrary the Human rights protect our right to be different, through cultural identity and religion amongst other rights. The Basic rights of humans should not be based on culture but on what makes the most difference to human rights cause, diversity does not effect human need, and therefore should not effect, at least at the most fundamental level, the universal doctrine of human rights.
