Philosophy x Human Rights
“The universality of human rights is enriched by the diversity of cultures around the globe.”
Let us consider this intellectual exercise as a critique, not in the sense of a rejection of the title statement, but rather as a questioning. For the scope of this paper, I will provide an outline of the discourse to give the reader an understanding.
Let us take the Socratic method and interrogate first the title question. It states “universality” being enriched by “diversity”. At first, it seems like a contradiction. Universality hints at something that is applicable to all cases, all people, in this case around the globe. Diversity, in contrast, describes variety. One truth is enriched by many truths.
In Perpetual Peace, Kant puts forth a compelling argument towards universality:
“It is only a right of temporary sojourn, a right to associate, which all men have. They have it by virtue of their common possession of the surface of the earth, where, as a globe, they cannot infinitely disperse and hence must finally tolerate the presence of each other. Originally, no one had more right than another to a particular part of the earth.”
We may not share the same gender, the same culture, the same religion, yet we all depend on the same finite territory, our planet Earth, and so must learn to lean towards hospitality rather than hostility.
Kant was a product of the 18th century, the Enlightenment era, a Foundationalist for whom it was essential that dignity be an intrinsic, inherent human value, and a couple of hundred years later we can find his influence in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The UDHR, a direct reaction to the atrocities of the second world war, was formulated over the course of two years and signed and adopted by the UN in 1948, in the wake of the weakening of imperial rule. The drafting committee headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, consisted of international representation from sovereign states and invited a number of representatives to comment on the draft and so contribute to its development. The UDHR, though not legally binding, formed the philosophical foundations for the United Nations Charter. At the time the newly founded UN consisted of only 51 member states, yet already there is a clear discrepancy as to the diversity of philosophical thought included in its drafting.
As an example, the Chinese commentary by Chun-Hu Lo clearly states that the focus on the claiming of individual rights in the UDHR is contrary to the Confucianism model of mutual obligations to one’s neighbor and the state.
At the same time, we must not forget that a particular delegate, Hansa Metha of India, is credited for changing “All men are born free and equal” to “All human beings are born free and equal” in Article 1 of the UDHR and thus concretizing women´s rights in the UDHR and later the Charter.
By 1955, The Bandung Conference established the Non-Aligned Movement. This conference was made up of 29 newly independent African and Asian states, totaling just over half the world´s population at the time. The Dasasila Bandung, a ten-point declaration on the promotion of world peace and collective cooperation incorporating the principles of the UN Charter was unanimously adopted. Most significantly, the establishment of the non-aligned movement was a direct reaction to the rising tensions between the US and the Soviet Union, and a pledge to submit to neither power, thereby halting the global influence of each school of thought.
To add some context, both the US and the Soviet Union had very different ideas on what constituted human rights. On the one hand, the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), adopted by the democratic-republican US, outlines the individual rights with duties to the state with an emphasis on individual ownership of housing and business. On the other hand, the Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), adopted by the communist Soviet Union, outlined most significantly the rights of human beings provided by the state including the right to education, health facilities, housing. To this day, the US has not signed the CESCR.
Human Rights, as a universal standard, are the prerequisites for a life of dignity. They are there to protect dignity. We have rights because we have dignity. How this dignity is protected differs greatly, as outlined above.
Rorty prescribes Human Rights as a culture, leading to an inferior/superior complex. Cultural relativism is a strong challenge to the concept of the universalism of Human Rights. The expansionist paradigm as a civilized vision arising from western powers raises racist concepts as well as proving Human Rights as alien to non-western cultures. Abdullahi An-Naim has approached the compatibility of Human Rights with the religious beliefs of Muslims, and the Islamic justice system of sharia law. In his 2013 paper, An-Naim introduces the concept of finding the universal in the particular. Owning human rights through cultural, religious, and secular re-interpretation is a central process to his philosophical work. This may include non-negotiable and negotiable principles according to a secular state. As an example, for An-Naim, gender equality is non-negotiable.
Consider the era in which the declaration and the two covenants were drafted: they had in mind a patriarchal family structure, a male model, and so they inherently leave out the female perspective. They were written at a time where every culture, religion, and state in the world was still oppressing women.
It is interesting to note, that though the universal declaration aims at equality for all, for all human rights for all, we have needed to extend this notion in new and separate treaties on specific subjects of minority rights such as the rights of children, the disabled, indigenous and women´s rights, with the aim of protection against slavery, racism, sexual orientation. There is a treaty outlining the protection of specific rights of every group of people except the cis white man. All treaties deal with specifics to avoid the exploitation and oppression of human beings.
The UDHR is not a legally binding document yet all consequent treaties stemming therefrom are, although states are free to choose to sign and ratify each one. Choosing to be bound legally is the ultimate display of not aligning politically, culturally, to certain, if not all, articles.
And so to the original question of this paper we can conclude that the universality, or lack of, of human rights, can be measured through the ommission of signatures in the various treaties. And as a last note, I would replace “enriched” with “informed”. Although I conclude that the universality is informed by the ommitence of diversity of cultures.
Bibliography:
Kant, Immanuel, ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’
UNESCO. Human rights: Comments and interpretations. Paris: UNESCO, 1948, online at <https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000155042>.
UNITED NATIONS. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Women Who Shaped the Declaration, online at <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>
Rorty, Richard. “Human Rights, Rationality and Sentimentality.” In Truth and Progress, 167–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
An-Na’im, Abdullahi Ahmed, ‘An Inclusive Approach to the Mediation of Competing Human Rights Claims: An Inclusive Approach: Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im’, Constellations, 20/1 (2013),
Okin, Susan Moller, ‘Feminism, Women’s Human Rights, and Cultural Differences’, Hypatia, 13/2, (1998)
