Questions on the validity of Universal Human Rights!

The question against the claim of Human rights as Universal is justifiable, but for that we must be confirmed that people who question against it-are indeed- looking at it with a narrow concept of the culture that they are living in. I agree that questioning is reasonable; there is no concept as such which is neutral and universal- except the sun we see- but every question has their own possible answers, and for me- if I have to deal with the concept of ‘universalism’ in the Human Rights, I would say it is valid on the ground of establishing peace, justice and freedom in the world. In the mean time, I may change my mind if I come to know that there exist any culture, ideology or ‘more’ universal thing that confronts-challenges-or claims to protect the individuality and dignity of human beings and maintains the ground I am referring to.

Cultural Relativists, or those who have alternative views to the validity of Universal Human Rights, are usually seen to question the concept of ‘universalism’ itself. They claim no concept as such is universal. For they believe the concept of ‘universal’ Human Rights is a continuation of the colonial syndrome of the western societies, who are possessing a universal value to spread it all over the earth, in the form of one ‘universal’ culture. Similarly, they even claim that entire focus on ‘individual dignity’ is in a way, breaks the social fabrics, and when it breaks there is no importance of individual as such. For instance, Individual are ‘knots’ and society is the ‘net’; certainly without the knots the net would collapse; but without the net, the knots would not even exist. (Steiner & Alston, 2000) 

The concept of nets and knots are extremely important in this context. Alternative views argue that without the net, the knots would not even exist, or in simple meaning, without society an individual cannot exist. But what is more important here is what kind of net we are preparing. Does that net hold the foundation of peace, justice and freedom. In the name of helping the net exist, how far it is justifiable to limit the reasoning and freedom of people. Isn’t it important to first protect the individual dignity of the human beings, give priority to their choices and reasoning, and then with their wisdom they contribute to make a ‘just’ society. Also, the culture is the way of life and it is always desired, but limiting ourselves to the culture to an extreme gives us nothing in return; in short, it restrict ourselves against other possibilities of life, and the pleasure we get form cross-cultural experience and solidarity.

            It is fact that ‘Universal Human Rights’ is a western concept because it started somewhere from their premises. But here, when it comes to maintaining peace, justice and freedom, a ‘concept’ must be separated from its origin and if possible, it should be studied in wider perspectives. Though we live in different parts of the world, with different religion, ideologies and culture, but after all, who are we who are living? In simple words, we are human beings, which is a universal fact. If somebody comes and tell me that ‘no, we are not human beings’ then I go wrong. However, if we believe in human beings and have faith on ‘humanity’ then definitely the concept of ‘Universal human rights’ is universal. In a conclusion, we must understand, human nature is universal because they have power of universal ‘organ’ (Steiner & Alston, 2000)  of knowledge and which cannot be limited by any culture, religion, etc. Individual is important because they make up societies. Therefore they must have rights to protect each individual dignity-but for this-the only limitation is to enjoy rights without interfering others.