I believe that Human Rights should be universal.
Of course, it is important to acknowledge that different cultures/states have their own opinions and beliefs on what an individual in their state should have the rights to do and it is sometimes difficult to change their perspective on some issues due to their religious, political or social stance. But human rights should be acknowledged by everyone and anyone because it provides every individual, safety, health and be provided with standard living conditions.
A woman named Saba was attacked by her father and uncle in 2014, many of the Human Right’s they violated should be a violation of the law, not the individual’s rights. For one, Article 3, stated that “Everyone has the right to liberty, safety and freedom” should be a universal law. Every individual should be protected by their state, no matter if they hold citizenship or not, and their race/religion/belief system should never have an effect on their personal safety and health. Saba’s father and uncle went against this Human Right by attempting to murder her when she provoked them by marrying a man they did not give their consent for her to marry due to his status. They’re violating her freedom of choice and expression and affecting her safety, and their argument for doing so was that she was destroying the family’s honour and affecting the communities opinion on the family itself. This is not a valid reason towards committing such a crime which would be regarded as murder in many other countries, or at the very least, manslaughter. Such a ‘right’ should be the law, in no way is it excusable to murder an individual unless it was for self-defence or the individual could threaten other individuals or communities on a greater scale. This right should be the law, it would limit the casualties of honour killing and shape a different opinion on honour and status in many of these rural countries.
May 4, 2018 at 6:12 am
– do you agree or disagree with their perspective and why (if disagree be respectful of course)
I completely agree with your perspective – Saba’s father and uncle have absolutely no excuse to do what they did, no matter how much their culture accepts it. Maybe you could explain a little more about the difference between cultural relativism and universalism? Just so that the readers have a clearer picture. I think that you have a very clear understanding of cultural relativism and universalism – you feel that the human rights should be universal and applicable to everyone, regardless of race, religion or belief system. You understand that what Saba’s father acted on was his cultural belief.
May 4, 2018 at 6:18 am
I agree with your perspective that while it is important to acknowledge the different cultures, opinions and beliefs, human rights should be acknowledged. In the case of Saba’s, their culture and lifestyle all depend on the social status they have in the community. For something that their life depends on it, why is it still wrong for them? I like how you are able to explain the terms without even mentioning the words themselves.
May 4, 2018 at 6:22 am
Hey Iona, I think that you did a good job on your post, the use of the case study to explain what cultural relativism and universalism was quite in depth and explored in its many aspects. Everything was added in quite smoothly and it explained your point of view very nicely. One thing I would have liked to see a bit more of is what might have created the view that you currently hold, although yes I do strongly agree with it as well it would be quite interesting to see what has influenced this perspective.
Cool beans,