On the Reconciliation of Human Rights and Cultural Difference
Journal Title: The Journal of Human Rights - Year 2019, Vol 14, Issue 1
Abstract
Human rights are universal, and therefore seem to be independent of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’. In the Western philosophical and religious traditions they originated in the Stoic idea of the moral unity of mankind and the Christian belief in one, unique, universal God, the creator of the Universe and its human inhabitants. According to this view, all human beings had certain fundamental obligations to God, and this entailed obligations to all human beings. Although Christians believe Christianity to be the one true religion, the Christian theory of human rights holds that all human beings have obligations to respect the rights of all other human beings, irrespective of their religious beliefs or cultural identity. The modern conception of human rights, as embodied in UN texts, is a secularised version of this idea: all human beings have all human rights (including the rights to freedom of religion and to participate in the culture of their community) irrespective of their cultural identity. In recent years, however, this conception of human rights has been challenged on the ground that it fails to take account of the moral importance of ‘identity’ and ‘difference’, and consequently constitutes an ideological disguise for the domination of a particular, Western form of moral and political discourse. This challenge has arisen in at least four contexts: 1) the relations between the West and non-Western cultures; 2) minority rights; 3) the rights of indigenous peoples; 4) the rights of women. I shall argue that the concept of human rights can be reconciled with the legitimate claims of ‘difference’, but that this requires some rethinking of the concept. In this way, the challenge of ‘difference’ enriches without undermining the concept of human rights. Nevertheless, there are ‘grey areas’, in which the best way to reconcile universality and difference cannot be determined by theoretical speculation. An irresolvable area of philosophical ‘difference’ cannot be avoided. This should not, however, be considered a serious problem for the idea of human rights.
Authors and Affiliations
Micheal Freeman
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP631731
- DOI 10.22096/HR.2019.111281.1151
- Views 121
- Downloads 0
Preventive Measures Taken by Islam to Avoid Bloodshed and War with Non-Muslims
It is important to prevent bloodshed and war to the extent that it is proper to pay maximum attention to prevention of conflict in comparison with trying to extinguish the flames of war. Although trying to achieve reconc...
Promoting Peace, En‘forcing’ Democracy? The European Court of Human Rights’ Treatment of Islam
Contemporary Europe is undoubtedly a largely secular region where the notion that secularism and ‘progress’ are intertwined has long held sway. Religion in the public sphere is, for many Europeans, associated with emerge...
False Antinomies: Universalism and Particularism in Modern Political Life
چکیده اکنون نیز در مورد تعیین رابطة بین عام وخاص ابهام فراوان وجود دارد. پساساختارگرایانی همچون میشل فوکو، جامعهگرایان، لیبرالها، عملگرایانی مانند ریچارد رورتی و جان راولز، دیدگاههای متفاوتی دارند که در متن مق...
Changing the Trajectory: the Religious Underpinnings of Children’s Right to Freedom From Corporal Punishment
-
The Authenticity Issue in the Interpretation of Human Rights:Critical Review of Mohammed Ghazali's Islamic View on UDHR
The contemporary debates, among religious thinkers, over the relationship between religion and politics necessarily involve the relationship between right and obligation. Mohammed Ghazali is among those thinkers who beli...