What is the difference between relativism and universalism in human rights?

Essential Question: To what extent can cultural relativism be used to justify different concept of human rights?

Human rights are far from a well-defined and commonly agreed upon concept. Different groups of people view human rights in different ways. In some cases, the issue of who defines and codifies human rights is a source of conflict (e.g. ICC, HR covenants). Furthermore, states have sometimes been accused of using human rights as an excuse to justify less than altruistic actions (e.g. military intervention). The rights of individuals are seen by some as incompatible with the rights of a community or collective (first/second generation rights vs. third generation rights).

As a result, in the final three lessons we will discuss the various ways the theory and practice of human rights are debated and challenged in global politics.

To start our discussion of debates surrounding human rights we will read the article below written by Shashi Tharoor, an Indian politician who previously served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations. This source does a good job of introducing us to some of the common contemporary challenges to universal human rights as laid out in UDHR and the Covenants.

1. Why does Tharoor believe that the debate about human rights is important and not “abstract”?
2. What are some of the arguments different groups of people use to object to the universality of human rights? (e.g. Africa, southeast Asia, etc.)
3. Do you agree with these arguments? Why or why not?

Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism

We cannot let cultural relativism become the last refuge of repression.

U.S. Secretary of State Christopher Warren speaking at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, 1993.

Two competing theoretical foundations in global politics are universalism and relativism. Universalists argue that all peoples have a shared and common humanity which means there can be some universal values. In human rights, universalists believe that all humans have the same inalienable rights simply because of their humanity. Therefore, all humans are entitled to the same rights and freedoms, regardless of age, sex, gender or any other distinguishing characteristic.

In contrast, relativism is a critical theory that argues nothing is universal among humans and that all values are created by culture. Because there is no universal culture, there can be no universal values. As a result, each culture determines its own values and its own idea of justice. Morality is subjective, and there is no objective morality. Relativists believe it is impossible to impose a universal set of human rights on all cultures because each culture creates its own set of morals and ideas of right and wrong. Instead, human rights are relative to the cultures that created them (i.e. western culture) and other cultures are entitled to their own morality.

Watch the video above and respond to the following questions;

1. How are human rights relative to culture?
2. What are some actors that are on the side of universalism? What are some groups on the side of relativism?
3. How can relativism be used to justify different concepts of human rights?

Viewing Instructions: According to Neha Reddy why is it important to consider culture when studying and implementing universal human rights? What is her conclusion about the role of culture? Does she believe human rights are relative?

Theory of Knowledge: Can truth or morality be universal? What are the implications for global politics if all cultures can construct equally valid or legitimate morals?

Case Study: Sharia Law

While there are numerous examples of cultural practices being challenged by universal human rights, we are going to examine a single broad example; Sharia Law and Islam.

Source A: “Islam: Governing Under Sharia,” Council on Foreign Relations

1. Briefly describe Sharia Law.
2. Outline some acts that can be punished under Sharia Law.
3. Identify some differences in how Sharia is implemented in Muslim countries and societies.
4. Are there any clear contradictions between Sharia and universal human rights? Explain.

Source B: The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Briefly skim through the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. How does it differ from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Source C: “This is What Life is Like Under Sharia Law,” VICE News

Using source C, identify examples where the concept of universal human rights is in conflict with the Islamic view of rights as outlined by Sharia?

Reflection: Can there be any compromise between relativism and universalism? Are these theories entirely exclusive of one another? Is it possible to respect cultural differences and uphold universal human rights as put forth in UDHR and the Covenants? Are human rights just a Western construction forced upon non-Western cultures? Write a ~300 word reflection and post your answer on Managebac.