Download Name: Date: Universal Human Rights (“Ethical Absolutism

Name:
__________________
Date:
_________________
Universal Human Rights (“Ethical Absolutism”) & Cultural Relativism
(“Ethical Relativism”)
Meta-ethics debate: Are the rights of humans universal, or do they depend upon the particular norms of
their cultural context?
In 1948, just after the death and destruction caused by the Second World War, the United Nations (UN)
established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These rights are called ‘universal’ because
supporters argue they belong equally to every person on the Earth regardless of gender, age, social status or where
a person lives. These rights are considered morally correct by supporters, and they are a form of “ethical
absolutism” which argues there is such a thing as right and wrong that apply universally. The UDHR consists of
30 rights, which uphold the dignity and equality of all humans. These rights are the “foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world” and are inalienable (cannot be taken or given away).
The UNHR has been signed by the majority of member states of the UN, but it is not a legally binding treaty so
countries are not compelled to implement all the rights.
Some of the rights include:
Original Version
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, …
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the
slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
Link to full document
Edited Version
Article 1
Right to Equality
Article 2
Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3
Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4
Freedom from Slavery
Article 5
Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Link to full document
A criticism of the UDHR is that it is very Western and secular in nature and does not reflect the traditions and
beliefs of non-Western cultures.
Question: "What is cultural relativism?"
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own
social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society
may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to
judge another society’s customs.
Cultural relativists believe that all cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of
cultures, even those with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and
bad. All cultures should be considered equal expressions of human existence. What constitutes right and wrong is
determined solely by the individual or by society. No one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter
of personal opinion, and no society can pass judgment on another society.
Cultural relativism sees nothing fundamentally wrong (and nothing fundamentally good) with any cultural
expression. So, the ancient Mayan practices of self-mutilation and human sacrifice are neither good nor bad; they
are simply cultural distinctive, similar to the American custom of shooting fireworks on the Fourth of July. Human
sacrifice and fireworks are different products of separate societies.
The Challenge of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity
by Diana Ayton-Shenker
Universal Human Rights and Cultural Relativism
This situation sharpens a long-standing dilemma: How can universal human rights exist in a culturally diverse
world? As the international community becomes increasingly integrated, how can cultural diversity and integrity
be respected? Is a global culture inevitable? If so, is the world ready for it? How could a global culture emerge
based on and guided by human dignity and tolerance? These are some of the issues, concerns and questions
underlying the debate over universal human rights and cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to
different cultural perspectives. In other words, according to this view, human rights are culturally relative rather
than universal.
Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the
international system of human rights that has been painstakingly constructed over the decades. If cultural tradition
alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of
human rights would be given legitimacy.
Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject
to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to
promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural
norms above international law and standards.
Point for discussion / journal:
a)
Should the rights of a particular group of people depend upon their culture (Cultural Relativism) or are
there certain rights (Universal Human Rights / “Ethical Absolutism”) that all people, regardless of culture,
should share? Explain.