Universalism Versus Cultural Relativism

One of the close to pertinent issues of the past twenty years has been the conflict between two different ideologies of humans rights on a national scale, universalism, and cultural relativism. Universalism holds that much primitive cultures will eventually evolve to concord the same scheme of law and rights as double-uern cultures. Cultural relativists hold an opposite, but withal rigid viewpoint, that a traditional culture is unchangeable. In universalism, an individual is a social unit, possessing inalienable rights, and driven by the pursuit of self interest. In the cultural relativist model, a community is the basic social unit.Concepts such as individualism, freedom of choice, and equality are absent. It is recognized that the community incessantly comes first. This tenet has been exploited by many states, which decry any impositions of western rights as cultural imperialism. These states ignore that they have adopted the western nation state, and the goal of moderni zation and economic prosperity. Cultural relativism is in itself a very unequivocal idea, cultures are rarely unified in their viewpoints on different issues, it is always those who hold the microphone that do not agree(http//www. aasianst. rg/Viewpoints/Nathan. htm).Whenever one assemblage denies rights to another group within a culture, it is usually for their own benefit. thus human rights cannot be truly universal unless they are not flinch to cultural decisions that are often not made unanimously, and thus cannot deliver every individual that these rights apply to. Even though cultural relativism has owing(p) problems and a potential for abuse, universalism in its current state is not the lofty solution. Universalism is used by many Western states to negate the validity of more traditional clays of law.For example, if a tribe in Africa is ruled by a chieftain and advised by the twelve most senior villagers, is this administration any less representative than the suppo sedly more liberal societies of the West?. It is not possible to impose a universal system of human rights if the effects of social change stemming from modernization are not mum or worse yet, ignored. In non-Western societies, industrialization, capitalism, and democracy might not have been the eventual outcome of the process of cultural evolution. These ideologies have been shaped and created by Western imperialism, the slave trade, colonialism, modernization, and consumerism.Todays world shows signs of positive gird towards the universal system of human rights. The declaration of human rights occurred immediately aft(prenominal) the atrocities committed during WWII. The globalization of human rights began when the world was awakened to the crimes committed chthonian one government (Hitler), and the need for a more universal system of accountability and responsibility. Through a forum such as the united Nations, cultural differences are better able to be resolved, thereby pa vement the way for universalism while at the same time recognizing and compromising on the needs of reliable cultures.The recent adoption of the International criminal speak to in June 1998 is an important step in enforcing and promoting the values agreed upon by the member nations. As the world becomes a smaller place with the sexual climax of globalization, universalism makes more sense as a philosophy of human rights. In a world where many people might not be governed by national borders, having fundamental human rights instead of ones bound to certain cultures provides the best solution.