What effect does a concern for cultural diversity have upon justifying universal human rights?

With these definitions in hand, we can now explore exactly what universal human rights are and how they are concerned with cultural diversity. If human rights are, as claimed by Nickel, universal in the sense that all people have and should enjoy them, and The Vienna Declaration of 1993 confirms that all human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent, then what is the problem? Surely if they are universal then culture should not be a factor? Unfortunately this is not the case. Culture is a huge factor in justifying human rights and can seriously effect whether there is sympathy towards these rights as it is an undeniable fact that some societies have a completely hostile approach to any human rights let alone universal ones. What is also inescapable though is the fact that some human rights are undeniably universal, for example it would be tough to imagine anyone arguing against recognizing the rights of Articles 3-12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which include life, liberty, and security of the person, protection against slavery, arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile, and inhuman or degrading treatment. These rights are quite clearly connected to human dignity and it would be unthinkable for any morally sound social organization to disregard them. They are therefore universal human rights for any culture, without taking away from the traditions of those cultures. There will of course be the odd few cases of cultures who do disregard these rights, despite the fact that it is morally unthinkable.

The main argument against universal human rights is that of the relativist, there being two types of relativist; the strong and the weak. A strong relativist will argue that culture is the sole source of the validity of a moral right or rule, accepting a few basic rights which have universal application. Weak relativism regards culture a secondary source of the validity of right or rule. Relativists insist upon the importance of people’s cultures and that all cultures should be respected, which is particularly ironic as this ideal originates in part, from the same thinking that underlies human rights. One of the main arguments is that of the West and the rest, the idea of cultural imperialism, which universalism is accused of. There is a strong held belief that in implementing universal human rights we are really implementing western ideals of what is morally right and thus abandoning consideration for cultural diversity. This however is quite the opposite as the notion of human rights is universal and egalitarian: all human beings are equal in rights, which contrasts starkly to imperialism which is inegalitarian. According to Lockes’ theory imperialism is immoral as it violates the right to political self-determination. Universalism on the other hand offers freedoms and rights equally to everyone.

The universal rights; freedom of belief and speech require that we accept or at least tolerate the views of those whose beliefs we find to be immoral, e.g. if a minority of a particular culture believed slavery should be reinstated, we can find this idea disgraceful but we can not impose legal liabilities on those people so long as they are only a view rather than actually being implemented. It is essential here to consider that international human rights law virtually gives states total discretion in implementing internationally recognized human rights without totally compromising their culture, allowing rights and culture to coincide peacefully to some extent. However some cultures clearly demand condemnation for their practices, which the idea of reinstating slavery illustrates.

Rhoda Howard in addressing women’s rights in Africa has suggested a compromise strategy, arguing against an outright ban on certain practices such as child betrothal, but rather introducing national legislation allowing women to “opt out” of traditional practices. Thus permitting individuals and families to, in effect, decide on their terms the way in which they participate in the cultures that are of values to their lives.  This therefore allows the existence of universal human rights within cultural diversity, thus justifying universal human rights whilst considering culture at the same time.

 A well known feature of cultures is that it can have a huge impact on human nature, the way we are brought up and taught to think, and also the way that morals are perceived. Human rights are known to be based in human nature, and in most cases the basics of human nature are the same, so if we based all moral values on culture there could be no human rights, but as human nature is part of a persons culture and fundamentally human beings have the same human nature we can argue that cultural diversity is not only a concern but also a justifying factor in having universal human rights.

It is widely accepted by international human rights institutions that universal human rights principles ought to be interpreted differently in different cultural environments. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights offers that, in the election of members of the Human Rights Committee, consideration should be given to the representation of different forms of civilization and different legal systems. This shows that there is recognition that culture is an important aspect and needs fair representation. It also shows that if we are to respect people’s cultures we need to know what the cultures are. If peoples opinions are an expression of their culture, and to understand the culture we need to be able to hear the people, but the people can only be heard if there is a secure set of rights. This idea leads to thinking that respect for cultural diversity may not actually be a threat to universal human rights but a way to implement those rights.

It is clear that to a certain extent the conflict between universal human rights and culture will always remain due to certain beliefs within those cultures. Therefore whilst, we should have a concern for cultural diversity, universal human rights, although open to interpretation to fit in with cultures varying beliefs, cannot give its approval to practices identified as morally unforgivable and inhuman, purely because the practices are cloaked by culture. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is frequently becoming more recognised by contemporary cultures/civilizations, it is fair to say in the words of the declaration that it provides “a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Thus we can conclude that a concern for cultural diversity is, in itself a huge justifying factor in universal human rights, as they are just that, universal.