Cultural relativism or universalism ? An essay in political ethics

MickaÃ«l L.

Commandez une rédaction : Dissertation en Sciences politiques sur mesure

Devis en ligne gratuit

Dissertation Format .doc

Cultural relativism or universalism ? An essay in political ethics

Télécharger

Lire un extrait

Lecture
Résumé
Sommaire
Extraits

Résumé du document

This is an essay on cultural relativism in the field of political ethics. Yesterday confined to anthropological studies, the idea infiltrated the domain of international morality after the Second World War. It developed from its original virtues of tolerance and understanding to more defensive claims to self-determination and domestic sovereignty. New multilateral agreements on the promotion of global human rights are today criticized as not so universal as they once seemed to be. There are now demands for revisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 and its several associated treaties , revisions that would insist less on individual rights and more on the duties of every person towards its state and community. Most of these requests originate from non-Western countries eager to defend their own political and legal institutions, often stigmatized as being authoritarian and disrespectful to basic human dignity. Are these claims expressing real concern for domestic cultural productions, or are they rather the egoistic wishes of ruling elites wanting to keep control of their society ? Cultural relativity is a fact that cannot be denied ; we are all socially situated beings. Does that mean there is a moral justification to cultural relativism ? And if so, does it leave some room to the possibility of universal moral values anyway ?

Sommaire

Introduction.
Cultural relativism versus universalism: The human rights debate.
1. Cultural relativism and empirical considerations.
2. The moral justification underlying relativist claims.
3. Another conclusion to Walzer's argument.
4. The Asian argument.
5. The absence of normative aspect to cultural relativism as opposed to human rights.
6. Would victims of human rights abuse stick to conservative positions.
7. Thomas M. Franck and the global development of human rights.
The 'moral standing of the state': A critical assessment.
1. Communitarians.
2. Presentation of the state as 'the arena within which self-determination is worked out'.
3. A 'fit' between any given political community and its government.
4. Counter-arguing against the communitarian point of view.
5. Being aware of the dangers of cultural ethnocentrism and imperialism in the field of international as well as domestic ethics.
Conclusion.
References.

Accédez gratuitement au plan de ce document en vous connectant.

Extraits

[...] We should respect the others' ability as much as we respect ours, and therefore we should not try and interfere in or even judge other communities. Just as we accept individual right to freedom and life, we should accept not to indulge into the arena of expression of these rights, which is the community. Or, as Walzer remarks: the individual case, we fix a certain area for personal choice; in the communal case, we fix a certain area for political choice.”[9] This last part of Walzer's case is the most insisted upon by political leaders willing to dissociate themselves from the human rights universalistic approach to morality. [...]

[...] This is a crucial part in communitarian thinking: the morality of the state does not come from a self-justified existence, as it would according to a realist point of view. Rather, it stems from the political community that underlies it. A government is only the necessary political extension of a community, and it is used to defend it against foreigners. It relies upon the existence of a social implicit contract as to how it should work, in order to ensure everybody's basic rights. [...]

[...] Cultural relativism is a point of view in the hand of ruling elites, not a case made for the well-being of the population. Human rights values, as contested as they may be, do not derive their universality from Western history, but from much more global trends of development and education. For this same reason, there is nothing to be terrified about in the global rise of human rights value; rather, we should find in it the opportunity to seek for a better world of more popularly supported “transnational forums of association”[42]. [...]

[...] As Thomas M. Franck points out, argument against this cultural relativism weaves together three strands”[16]. The first argues against the legitimacy of cultural exceptionalists, showing that they are not representative of their local cultures but rather social elites willing to justify their control of society. The second is concerned with the reality of cultural differences, and proves that human rights values are not Western in content. The third and last can be opposed to the normative part of cultural relativism. [...]

[...] "Cultural relativism or universalism ? An essay in political ethics" This is an essay on cultural relativism in the field of political ethics. Yesterday confined to anthropological studies, the idea infiltrated the domain of international morality after the Second World War. It developed from its original virtues of tolerance and understanding to more defensive claims to self-determination and domestic sovereignty. New multilateral agreements on the promotion of global human rights are today criticized as not so universal as they once seemed to be. [...]

doc