Relativism in no way precludes the possibility of cross-cultural universals
1. Moral and cultural relativism have indeed affected the human rights discourse, but on the philosophical level only.
2. Unfortunately, the challenge that relativism has presented to the human rights movement has not only been theoretical, but also politically motivated. It remains a fact that the claim of relativism, that diversity must be recognized, in no way destroys the existence of an international moral community.* (A.D. Renteln) Despite this recognition, relativism is still employed as a political device; this reflects the underlying tensions between those who place primacy narrowly on their own individual rights as opposed to the human rights of theirs and of others in the national and international community.
*: Take notice, for example, that some twenty moral precepts are already accepted as transcultural. These include the prohibition of murder or maiming; economic justice; reciprocity and restitution; provision for the poor; the right to own property; and priority for immaterial goods [such as freedom]. (R. Beis)
3. There is further compelling evidence that refutes the anthropological dogma that distinct cultural practices and beliefs represent an inviolable set of diverse truths and, consequently, are immune to outside criticism. Entire societies can be wrong, i.e., pertaining the systematic and unjust treatment of certain of its members (such as women, minorities and slaves). Such social structures that do affect decision-making serve no other purpose than to institutionalize inequality and injustice! Therefore, the mere fact that differences across cultures exist does not mean that all variations in social and cultural practices are right or acceptable. On these grounds, relativism itself has been critiqued as immoral. (R. Edgerton)
Taking a relativist position is often intended to insulate governments from international criticism regarding the treatment of their citizens
4. I contend that relativism itself would have to look beyond itself for a philosophical justification. In particular, the very claim of a ‘right to difference’, whether cultural or moral, implicitly implies the idea of a universal principle…
5. Although the human rights struggle is certainly motivated by passion, it is also influenced by argument. Simply put, human rights without reasons are vulnerable to denial and abuse. (M. Freeman) The use of reason can thus not escape the influence of particular cultural codes.
6. In general, philosophers have identified the following sources for human rights (HR): divine authority (the Ten Commandments), natural law, or considerations concerning human nature. None of the major international human rights documents refers to God, because the existence of a supernatural authority is not subject to objective proof. Furthermore, except for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, natural law –the system of moral imperatives accessible by human reason alone– is also dismissed by human rights…
7. For HR, it is demonstrably apparent that certain actions are wrong; there is widespread evidence that human beings have an aversion to violations of their dignity and well-being. Rational individuals anywhere do embrace standards and social arrangements that promote their autonomy, their security and their dignity.
8. Bottom line here, each human being has the right to equal concern and respect; this is simply a compelling moral axiom and a universal legal obligation.
The right to resist oppression is found in the tradition of many cultures.
9. Although existing international human rights instruments have an unmistakable Western imprint –both in terms of origin and methodology of implementation– this does not in any way invalidate the moral and legal content that they embody. For instance, any suggestion that freedom of expression is a luxury of the West insults the historic struggles of individuals and communities anywhere. (W. Soyinka)
10. In short, HR cannot be considered “a self-evident expression of Western culture” or of modernity alone. Comparable concepts of human respect, dignity and duty can be found in all parts of the world. The right to resist oppression is found in the traditions of many cultures in Africa, Asia and the Americas. In fact, some societies may possess the concept of rights without having an explicit vocabulary that expresses or codifies it.
11. Human rights are thus not arbitrary in nature, overwhelmingly because they are grounded in the universal realities of the human experience and they embody values presupposed by a wide range of cultures; they are features of humanness that lie beneath all local traditions –and actually are there to be seen– whether or not they are in fact recognized in local traditions. This being said, HR can then be regarded as a vehicle-for-shaping-social-conditions. (M. Nussbaum) They provide a mechanism for people of divergent convictions to learn about each other, resolve particular disagreements, and arrive at new understandings of what is possible for human beings giving rise to a new ethos of human solidarity and collective responsibility; it is this global dialogue that must be intensified manifold!
12. The international human rights regime thus has still much to gain from an ongoing process of moral, cultural and political dialogue among diverse nations and peoples. This, because there is no moral bond with others unless individuals choose to concern themselves with the interests of the community.
13. But the concept of HR goes beyond basic communitarian notions of mutual obligations; it not only embraces human diversity, but calls for a definite framework of rights and duties in the context of globally diverse societies.
14. Consequently, individuals remain universally weighed down by moral and civic ties even if they have not chosen them. The institutions of civil society are thus necessary, precisely because the separate interests of individuals inevitably often do interfere with each other.
15. Even though Article 29.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that “everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible,” the brevity and less than prominent location of this statement hardly does justice to the notion that human rights must and do have correlative obligations –and we know that the creation of an “equilibrium of responsibilities” among all members of society has been a long sought-after and elusive goal.
16. Let us insist: HR have the power to transform and to fuse diverse and contending peoples into a universal community. Without such a universal identity, there can be no basis for universal moral action.**
**: Furthermore, let us not underestimate: HR play a pivotal role in freeing humanity from the shackles of religious fundamentalism.
17. Whether the precepts, laws, institutions, and provisions for a new international order provided by the HR discourse offer a distinct and comprehensive approach to the establishment of justice in world affairs is for humanity itself to decide. The burden is on our shoulders and time is of the essence.
18. Human rights indeed represent an invitation to freedom–freedom from want, freedom from war, freedom to unite, freedom to progress, freedom in peace and joy. HR call for a society that asserts the priority of fair procedures over selfish, self-serving particular ends.
Claudio Schuftan in Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org