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 113
- Downloads 0
Religious Violence: Fact or Fiction?
The main question of this article is this. Does religion itself play a role in “political violence”? After clarifying the meaning of relevant terms such as “religion”, “religious violence”, “secular violence”, “voluntary...
World Peace: The Comparison between Kantian Viewpoint and the Islamic Perspective
The meaning of "World Peace" is a situation in which all individuals, groups and nations while preserving their human dignity, have a life of justice, security, tolerance and cooperation as a "right"; and participate act...
Human Rights, Global Trade and Moral Values
Today, immoralities and prevalence of injustice and corruption on the one hand, and dissatisfaction of the world people due to not considering their natural rights on the other hand, show that there are certain problems...
Interrelationship between Human Rights and Peace Two Mistaken Conceptions of Human Rights in both Islam and the West
The first mistaken conception is this. Some Muslim theorists argue that only God can proclaim what justice, right, and rights are; hence parliaments and other state institutions lack the sovereignty to create laws and to...
Democracy, Justice, and Peace in Popper's Critical Rationalism
This paper attempts to explain the relationship between the concepts of democracy, justice and peace in political thought. Popper's critical and liberalist approach toward democracy impelled us to utilize this twenties-c...