To my mind, the term "Human Rights", is a misnomer. It is more aptly called "Individual Rights". It is not a set of objective rights that all humans have by right of just being born human, nor is it a set of rights that all humans would agree with or apply in the same way to the same issue.
This has always been the problem which presents a crux: How do you balance cultural diversity without affecting individual rights? We have a society, richly diverse, with long traditions that, if lost, would only bring the world in to a more Westernized way of thinking. You have some groups that say this is an intrusion on their way of life. Its a good argument. Because some countries have said that American and/or European influence has tainted their culture.
On the other hand, simply allowing any society to live life as they see fit also means having to turn a blind eye to moral qualms that we have with that particular society because it does not maximize individual freedom. Female circumcision is a prime example of this.
In fact, this crux is exactly what is going on in many African and Middle Eastern cultures. How do we say that we appreciate your cultural diversity (i.e., leaving you alone), without also compromising on our time-honored Western beliefs, which is the expansion of individual right (i.e., don't cut off her clitoris because she is entitled to keep it)?
Its quite the little conundrum.
As a member of this culture, I grew up exposed to it and am a fervent individualist. I believe in protecting the individual rights of others, and broadening those rights as far as possible.
You sound Libertarian which is a great thing, only, it might limit you on the issues of cultural diversity which you also praise.
I should add that I think both have their place in the sun and are beautiful in their own right. However, there are those instances, such as mentioned above, where they butt heads, leaving us with quite the quandary to sort out.
This idea of national sovereignty included cultural sovereignty and was a natural extension of the idea of individual rights.
This is another problem. If, say, the US invades a country, first to protect its own assets, and second to liberate a repressed society, the US runs the risk of trampeling and violating the cultural diversity, and not respecting the laws or the sovereignty of that nation. On the other hand, they are, say, executing dissenters, surgically removing the clitorises of females, are corrupt, etc, etc.
This is why in many ways a nation like the United States will perpetually be criticized. We are scolded for going in to Iraq, and chastised for not going in to Darfur. We are condemned for going in to Somalia, and lambasted for not going in to (______ insert country here).
I think the nation's leaders just have to say that it is impossible that we will gain the approval of all the people of the world. Because this ever present, vexing crux exists, we will be treading on someone, somehow, no matter how much we would try to avoid it.
Crashfrog argued that human rights are objective and belong to the entire "human community". As such he has a right, and obligation to fight injustices he sees according to that framework of rights, regardless of borders and any impact on other cultures.
Yes, I would agree, however, some would argue that we are just playing world cop again, and that we don't respect the culture of that land. Case in point: Some Muslim women, who appear to us to be ostracized, may not know any better because that life is
all they know. They may take great offense for the imposition that they are door mats. They may find it wholly condescending to
liberate them from that which they don't want liberating from to begin with. And yet, there are those who see these injustices, but can't speak out against them. They want to be rescued, but can't get a word in edgewise.
Does a human community actually exist?
To an extent. But when you start talking about New World Orders, I'm outta there. I'll be hiding out in the mountains.
That seems like a convenient imaginary concept similar to what the Catholics and Protestants used long ago to "save" other cultures from objective harm as they viewed it. Isn't there simply a human species, just like other animals, in which there are different human communities, just like other animals?
People inherently want to categorize. They will take allegiance where ever they can get it. Crashfrog and I could be diametrically opposed politically, but if we were on the same sports team, watch how fast we begin to work with each other towards a common goal.
Somehow I don't see this as a coming together to share a human community at all
The Utopian dream quickly devolves in to a dystopia, no matter how pure the intentions may be. That's the price of sin. Then again, don't we all aspire to perfection, knowing full well that we'll never actually achieve it?
“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
™ Version 4.2
