The universal human rights concept has its roots in western political thought, so can we say that it applies to all human beings?

Résumé du document

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders...those are some of the many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) around the world based on the protection of human rights. Given they are international organisations, does it mean human rights are universal, i.e. they apply to everyone? The first step to answer this question would be to refer to the foundations of the universal concept. We might think of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, in 1948) as a main source, but in fact the notion of universal human rights is much older. With a flashback in the history of human rights theories, it is then possible to point out the problem of a relative Western conception of rights presumably applying to everyone. This peculiarity has been underlined through the doctrine of cultural relativity. More than fifty years after the vote of the Declaration, raise some delicate questions: can we go as far as to say that the Declaration of Human Rights is as universal as it pretends? The world is a gathering of states whose cultures and history are different, so how can a common ideal applied to them without destroying their specificities? Is it in the world interest to spread a similar way of life and thought? "The man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" wrote Rousseau, a French philosopher of the XVIIIth century, in his book Du Contrat Social (The Social Contract). Actually human beings have, for ages, wanted to claim their rights as a will to liberate themselves.

Extraits

[...] First, the introduction of the concept has encountered some reluctance in both areas. As a result, the two stories are not far from each other, but the classical critique made against the west is made against one of its main human rights theorist, John Locke, who based his doctrine on individualism. Individual rights are indeed granted independently of and in opposition to society. This standpoint, which is the one today in the West, has met some disagreements in the other parts of the world. [...]

[...] The liberal theory of human rights seeks as well to restrict the power of governments, but some non-westerners argue that it is alien to their cultures. Yet the target of human rights concerns is to secure people from the use of power of governments, and because all human individuals have rights to secure, it does not represent a way to protect the western way of life. This view is universal and not imperialistic because it subjects all governments to the same criterion of the promotion of good lives. [...]

[...] Whether the Marxist or the Confucian theories have criticized the campaign for human rights as part of the wider campaign against imperialism, colonialism and ethnocentrism, China promotes collective rights and has been reluctant to ratify the majority of the multilateral treaties on human rights. In Islam, too, the community comes before the individual. The religious community of Muslims is compact wall whose bricks support each other”. Islam, for all was God's, did not allow a theory of religious duty to turn into one of political rights. A Declaration of Human rights in Islam was been adopted in 1990 by the Islamic conference Organization, aimed at being compatible with the Sharia. [...]

[...] Rorty, who pledges for universal human rights, has imagined quite an original view on this question, by resting on sentiments, which are common to all human. Serbian murderers and rapists do not think of themselves as violating human rights, for they are not doing these things to fellow human beings, but to Muslims. They are not being inhuman, but rather are discriminating between the true humans and the pseudohumans. They think the line between human and animals is not simply between featherless bipeds and all others. [...]

[...] Another critique of universality ignores the degree of value commensurability that exists between communities. Human beings tend to have many similar conceptions regarding right and wrong behaviour or duties towards other people. Yet moral behaviour is not a cultural trait but a human predilection. In comparison, Richard Rorty proposes a solution of a "sentimental education" as a mean to promote human rights. Rorty notes that while philosophers have concerned themselves with questions of a universal human nature, looking for answers in our purported rationality, the most significant work in developing our morality has in fact been done through the telling of and sentimental stories'. [...]