Aada taught me to live dangerously with my heart on my sleeve. That if I was there to hit for the Crawford Boxes, she was there to drink with me after the game.
Therefore, I’m proud of this response for school and I’m posting it absent of the rubric so you don’t judge me. 😉
I know Aada a little too well. 😉
Are rights universal?
What does it say about us as a society if they aren’t?
Should you have to be good enough to deserve food, water, and shelter?
One of the central debates in human rights theory is whether rights are universal or whether they should be interpreted through the values and traditions of particular societies.
But what does it say about the human race that even food, water, and shelter are up for debate?
Universalism argues that human rights belong to all people simply because they are human. Rights do not depend on citizenship, nationality, religion, or legal status. Universalists maintain that every person possesses inherent dignity and therefore deserves certain protections regardless of where they live or what laws they have violated.
Cultural relativism is…… not that.
It argues that concepts of rights and justice should be understood within the context of specific cultures and societies. Rather than assuming that the same standards apply everywhere, cultural relativists emphasize the importance of local traditions, historical experiences, and social priorities when evaluating human rights questions.
Millions of lives are lost in the balance between what is acceptable in one society and unacceptable in another. There is no universe where people are unacceptable. There is also no universe where the person themselves is illegal. It’s a status, not a personality.
The debate over unauthorized migrants illustrates how these frameworks can produce different conclusions. A universalist would argue that entering or remaining in a country illegally does not eliminate a person’s fundamental rights. A nation may enforce its immigration laws, but those laws do not erase an individual’s right to humane treatment.
Humans are entitled to:
- -Due process
- -Protection from abuse
- -Basic human dignity
Under this framework, the legality of a person’s actions and the value of that person’s life are not the same thing.
A cultural relativist might focus more heavily on society’s right to determine its own rules regarding membership, citizenship, and border control. From this perspective, each nation has the authority to define its obligations to non-citizens according to their own values, traditions, and political circumstances. Cultural relativists are often skeptical of international organizations imposing universal standards that may conflict with local conceptions of sovereignty and national identity.
Examples of these approaches can be observed in contemporary debates. International human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch generally adopt a universalist position when advocating protections for migrants regardless of legal status. In contrast, governments that emphasize national sovereignty and strict immigration enforcement often employ arguments that reflect cultural relativist principles, asserting that immigration policies should be determined primarily by that nations own laws and cultural priorities.
Both frameworks are valid, but cultural relativism says there is no floor. There’s no basic definition of a person and requirements for care and feeding. There has to be a distinction between what you have done and who you are.
