In reading a recent article “Why I Don’t Believe in Universal Human Rights”, I was reminded of conversations with people on both sides of the left-right spectrum. These conversations proved, to me at least, that our sense of justice is informed by our experiences, our relative station in life, and a host of other factors, AND there is little commonality between the sense of justice of people on the right and left. In fact, there isn’t a common view even among people of the same side.
Delving into philosophy was intended to uncover the basis of morality. I have since concluded the universe is amoral. All things we consider moral and ethical are agreements among people in order to coexist within a community. It’s when that community is all people of the planet that we have major issues. Each community, or country, or block, tends to enact laws based on some common moral codes.
What we commonly use as a template for human rights are Eurocentric in nature and since they grew through several centuries of Christian traditions, there are usually biblical justifications for these norms. There is also commonality with Judaism and Islam, following the same Abrahamic tradition. The Crusades created the schism between the faiths, though there were many reasons why Islam diverged. Islam grew out of a different cultural heritage, and therefore left open the interpretation of scripture to suit the power structure at the time.
My basic premise is that there is no basis for universal human rights. Most people would buy into the sixth commandment and look at the right to life as universal. If we look to the Golden Rule, this too fits in well. Yet, there cannot be universality when capital punishment is common and sovereign entities seem to find “moral” justifications for assassinations. Thus, the most compelling “right to life” seems to have many exceptions.
Women’s rights were a significant reason for remaining in Afghanistan for two decades, after freeing them from Taliban tyrants. That didn’t seem to end well. Libya is another example of an incursion based on the Responsibility To Protect (R2P), that grew out of the Rwandan genocide. Libya is now a failed state. Will we go to that same extent to protect LGBT rights in East Africa? Not likely, as we tend to choose issues that are not being hotly debated in the west, or in this case more specifically in the US. Many in that country still seem to side with the Ugandan or Russian views on this topic.
My personal favourite is picking on the Chinese over human rights abuses. This is a major sport among western politicians. This view totally disregards Chinese traditions of Confucian Harmony and I believe this to be a deliberate distortion in the narrative wars. Trying to “understand” this thinking does not blend with the desire to maintain economic and military supremacy within the US and its vassal states.
This may be the bad side of “Wokeness”. Having achieved enlightenment in the West, we find the immediate need to pronounce a universal edict. Even in the West where we cherish these rights very dearly, one can easily see the chinks in the armour. Firstly, Women’s rights are very new in the west and one can argue that it is not respected or enforced even today. We are seeing back pedalling on this front. LGBT “rights” are certainly being challenged, though I don’t find it surprising. It may take generations to catch up with women’s rights. The Civil Rights act has been gutted more recently, ensuring the BLM movement becoming more radical.
Human Rights is a huge topic to cover in a short piece. The implications are far reaching. Other than International (and domestic) Relations, it informs justice systems, corporate ethics, and even the basis for education. Even though here in Canada, the right to medically assisted death is enacted, most of the rest of the world challenges whether it is trumped by the basic right to life. If I have a right to life, why not a right to “choose” death? The implication in economies is yet another path not taken.
I am NOT arguing for the elimination of human rights or morals for that matter. It is the universality of these rights that cause problems. I do believe there is a path to a more peaceful coexistence but it does not follow the carrot and stick model we tend to prefer (mostly stick). The path to a better understanding starts with an understanding of respectful social interactions, a variant of the golden rule. The difficulty though is, like human rights, there is no universality in those interactions. Circumstances dictate the appropriate interaction. Even the Golden Rule collapses. I may insult someone by interacting with them the way I expect to be treated. Being open to “learn” these differences may hold the key.
Someday, we may accept that broad social changes need to evolve over time. Our enlightenment journeys follow very different paths. In Plato’s cave allegory, we shouldn’t be anxious to rush to the shackled people and free them from their “tormentors”. Sadly, patience is a dwindling commodity, particularly when measuring progress in centuries rather than decades.
