Human rights were originated in the West and established as a form of cultural dominance.
Human rights in Western standard might not be accepted by other cultures.
There lies an array of predicaments.
The West would not honour human rights consistently if facing the risk of upsetting economic allies.
The concept mainly represent Western interests.
It is asserted that human rights are expressive of Western values and norms, thus could be contradictory to other cultures.
The concept of human rights came from Judeo-Christian (which has contained as part of Western culture) and The Enlightenment. These rights reflect Western interests which cannot be practised smoothly by other nations that don’t reproduce the conditions and values of Western societies. For example, the premise of Asian values argues that "the civil, political, social, and cultural norms advanced by the international human rights legal framework are Western, rather than universal. " For such reason, human rights are often imposed on non-Western countries by Western governments. We are living in a world of plurality of cultures, where western is centred on the individual whereas most African and Asian value the community. Considering disparities in the notions of human rights carried across by different countries, it is impossible for the West to implement such a non-universality concept in other nations.
1.Human rights are defined to have universal validity, regardless of its originality. 2. The simplified view that human rights are western overlooks the fact that a majority of the countries involved in the formation of UDHR were non-western countries like India and China, suggesting that "All cultures—Western or otherwise—beget demands for the recognition of human rights from oppressed populations that later give rise to human rights reforms."
Enter the formal premises of the argument here ...
Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...
Content references here ...
Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument