Human rights is a globally political concern that is closely connected to aspects of universality. The introductory global legal instrument is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Habermas (2018), the universal aspect of these rights and freedoms is out of the question. Criticism of the universality of human rights is also prevalent. In fact, some definitions of universalism are definitely theoretically undefended, politically malicious, or both. This paper will describe Donnelly's concept of relative universalism of human rights and determine Mutua’s version of the same concept.
There are various potential cases of universality and relativity. Human rights are relative and it is significant to determine what they are relative to. Human rights are historically relative and ontological universality is still an aspect that is debatable (Donnelly, 2013). The most recognized perspective for relativity is towards the aspect of culture. Cultural relativity is a fact since cultures are varied and unique to themselves, often vividly, across time and space. Relativity in culture is because of the several doctrines that constitute cultural relativity with unbending force.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Donnelly, relativism could be differentiated in terms of methodological and fundamental aspects. Methodological cultural relativism was recognized among the mid-twentieth century anthropologists (Habermas, 2018) . They supported a fundamentally non-judgmental examination of cultures to free anthropology from the unconscious, and sometimes even conscious prejudices grounded in defining and judging other societies based on modern Western classes and values (Donnelly, 2013). These deliberations bring the notion of historical or anthropological relativity of human rights.
In contributions towards human rights, however, cultural relativism normally seems to be a functional normative principle that considers appreciation for cultural disparities. The standards of the Universal Declaration are showcased as possessing no normative ability in light of differing cultural norms (Habermas, 2018) . Principles are to be examined through the lens of standards and values of the culture in question. Man is deemed to have freedom only when he lives within the framework or definition of freedom in that society (Donnelly, 2013). Culture gives absolute principles of evaluation and whatever it pronounces to be right is definitely considered so.
Mutua has aptly demonstrated his position on relative universalism. He disagrees with Donnelly's claim that human rights are not universal, but shifts from one culture to the next. He argues that moral ideas are because of specific cultures, and could only be observed within those cultures (Mutua, 2009). That implies that the moral claims in one culture could be different from those of another culture. He also made a claim that the human rights movement is Western imperialism in another form. Mutua maintains that human rights movements have taken up an account in which Western rescuers save non-Western victims from non-Western barbarians.
I agree with Donnelly’s concept of relative universalism than Mutua’s. I find Mutua’s claims and suggestions to be distorted, particularly when he supports that the international human rights organization does not condemn Western governments. The Western governments have an accommodative framework that supports the freedoms of the national, but of course, they are shaped by the international human rights organization. It is not true that the actual target of human rights criticisms is cultures rather than governments. Another claim that I disagree with is what Mutua says about human rights violations, which he maintains that they should not be portrayed as brutal and inhuman but normal (Mutua, 2009). It makes a lot of sense when Donnelly proposes that freedom to express oneself and the rights to association, political involvement, competitive elections, and separation of powers as well as judicial independence must be categorized as universal values.
In conclusion, human rights are not an answer to global problems. They do, nonetheless, completely deserve the highlight they have received in the past years. For the anticipated future, human rights will still be a significant component in national, global, and transnational attempts for social justice and human dignity. Notably, relative universality of these rights is a great resource that could be utilized to help to create more fair and benevolent human and international societies.
References
Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice . Cornell University Press.
Habermas, J. (2018). The concept of human dignity and the realistic utopia of human rights. In Human Dignity (pp. 52-70). Routledge.
Mutua, M. W. (2009). The Transformation of Africa: A Critique of the Rights Discourse. Buffalo Legal Studies Research Paper Series .
