The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Moral Relativism
In our discussion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), many people espoused moral and cultural relativism, perhaps without knowing it. Some said the UDHR was arrogant, or impractical, because different cultures had different standards, and who were we to impose, for example, vacation time for a job? In contrast, Aaron cited Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape and described peaks and valleys of moral possibility, with the UDHR as an attempt to scale one or more of those peaks.
A while back, a local Denver thinker I respect deeply convinced me successfully that moral relativism is really a disguised form of racism: we hold our own people to a high standard, but it’s fine for some other culture to oppress women, or impose economic slavery in brutal forms of factory life. What do you think? How do we reconcile “live and let live” with globalism? How do we reconcile movements most of us agree with like GLBT rights (people should just love each other, let’s not go back to separate but equal) with genocide as a crime against humanity (we can’t let the Holocaust happen ever again, and we might even have to fight a war to stop it)?
What the UDHR attempted to do in regards to human rights was develop an idea of universality—of an objective truth stating the rights that all humans are entitled to. The heart of the matter is finding out if such truth exists; and if so, why do all places in the world not follow it? C.S. Lewis argues that humans can know what is right or wrong because we can recognize what we ought to do and we realize that many times we do not, in fact, do it. The fact that there is something outside of us—some moral standard to which we always fall short in our human condition—refutes moral and cultural relativism.
ReplyDeleteDifferent places developed and continue to develop their own unique cultures and laws governing their societies including laws that may have been wrong with respect to the universal truths and rights about which we debate constantly. In order to reconcile movements and fights for human rights with massive crimes against humanity such as the example of genocide given by Lincoln, we have to make a judgment call. We have to be able to tell other countries, political parties, leaders of movements, and our own peers when they are doing something that is morally unacceptable. This does not mean that we show disrespect for other cultures and diversity or disregard creative, unique, and brilliant ideas stemming from other societies. There is more than one way to skin a cat, to use a cliché; and there are various ways to live while following universal moral principles. As St. Paul said to the Corinthians, “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord,” indicating myriad ways humans can manifest truth and morality with the gifts and talents which vary from individual to individual.
One of the things that bothers me the most about a declaration of human rights is the assumption of superiority on the part of the people writing or giving the declaration, especially when they can’t even enforce said declaration. It is almost as if the authors of such a declaration think that the rest of the world is ignorant of (what the authors have decided are) basic human rights and must be lifted out of their ignorance and shown the way. Even if we ignore the ethnocentric aspects of the declaration, the fact that the declaration even exists is a testament to the idea of “western” superiority in all things moral, political, economic, and social. If these rights are truly universal, then surely they don’t need to be declared; they should already and automatically be a part of every human subconscious.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue I have with the UDHR is that, by its own admission, there is no superior man or group of men to whom the responsibility of enforcing said rights can be trusted. If we are all equal, then who gets to make sure we are all treated equally? It reminds me of the bible story in which Jesus pardoned an adulteress who had been condemned to death by stoning with the words “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Who gets to condemn Assad when we wiped out entire Native American tribes?
Finally, (and maybe I’m just being nitpicky here – sorry!) there is a difference between cultural relativism and moral relativism. Cultural relativism is an analysis of a culture in its own terms rather than in those of the observer’s culture. Examining a culture relatively and recognizing that it may be an equally valid way of living does not mean that one must condone on moral grounds any aspect of the culture in question. Ethical or moral relativism is an analysis of culture that takes each action or practice or belief as relative to its own situation, thus nothing is either immoral or moral. It might be entirely possible to have some declaration of universal human rights that are not offensive to anyone either culturally or morally as long as a culturally relative approach is taken.
I agree with your thoughts on the difference between cultural and moral relativism. I don't think you are picking nits at all. Actually, I think this is the basis of your argument all together. Wasn't Manifest Destiny the idea that Western thought and moral standing was the pinnacle of human civilization and it should be pressed onto other cultures in order to better those cultures? This was an action by Westerners to press their own ideologies onto more "primitive" ones because of Western superiority, both culturally and morally. The major fault, and there were many, was the lack of culturally relative thinking by Westerners. The Westerners placed themselves at the center of all things and believed that the things they wanted had to be the same things others wanted. And if others did not want to hold dear the same things Westerners did, they were considered underdeveloped or primitive.
DeleteIt seems Manifest Destiny is alive and well, harbored safely in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The question to ask then is, to what extent has this become embedded into the Western psyche? Is it so far imbedded that it has become invisible to Westerners imposing their "superior" standards on others? If so, what action must be taken to make known this faulty thinking?
Shane, I'm cautious about using the UDHR for evidence of current attitudes. It is a 68 year old document, and I frankly think a lot has changed since 1948. Remember, this document was really written before the Civil Rights movement, before feminism as we think of it (I don't want to cheapen the suffragettes and other early women's rights campaigners), and before the GLBT rights movement.
DeleteI just don't think American/Western values regarding topics like Manifest Destiny are the same in 2013 that they were when the UDHR was written.
That doesn't nullify your last point, but I think it's worth mentioning at least in this context.
I agree with both Katie and Shane that the distinction between cultural and moral relativism is very important especially in a document like the UDHR that tries to expand across a myriad of cultural, religious, and socioeconomic boundaries. I also agree that Manifest Destiny and other such movements of Western superiority played a part, but I also agree with Deborah that these ideas have changed. In fact I believe that they also play a huge role in this distinction and the kind of racism Lincoln is referencing.
DeleteThroughout history these kinds of events have undoubtedly transpired in many western countries, everything from colonialism to social Darwinism. In recent decades there has been a movement in the opposite direction, a movement based on the guilt people still feel about these events and an effort to do whatever I necessary to make sure everyone knows that one is accepting and absolutely not racist. Thus was born "I swear I'm not racist" racism which has led to the idea that we should ignore the moral implication of actions and standards in other countries and cultures on the off chance that we could be accused on trying to impose western standards on others because theirs are inherently inferior. This is just as much racism because if the same actions were done by someone of our own culture we would punish them for the immorality of their action but do not do so on others simply because they are different from us.
I believe, to put it very simply, that the UDHR is just outdated. The document was drafted at a time when the world was a dramatically different place. THREE African countries ratified the original document, the Cold War was just getting started, and none of the Axis players from World War II ratified it (Germany wasn’t even a member of the UN until 1973) http://www.un.org/en/members/. Think about the dozens of countries on the African, South American, and Asian continents that have received true independence in the last 65 years; they have different needs from a UDHR than “paid holidays.” Where in the declaration is the right to clean, accessible drinking water? Where is the right to enough food to feed your family? I believe the UDHR should be a little more general, but truly universal with the following rights: clean water, food, security of person, nationality, life (ie genocide is never okay), dignity, religion, sexual orientation (and marriage in that case as well), race/ethnicity, justified arrest, asylum from persecution, to own property, freedom of thought, humane working conditions, education, basic healthcare (especially women, children, and the elderly), and infrastructure to support these rights as needed by the community. It doesn’t need to be complicated to be meaningful. Some societies operate in vastly different capacities than others, and those basics allow people to thrive in as large or as small a capacity as they want. An American businessman can open a new franchise down the street, or a villager in Indonesia can send his child to school down the road. It comes down to treating each other kindly and giving people the necessary basics to survive.
ReplyDeleteLincoln did bring up the question of human genocide, and that is when it is appropriate to step in and say something. Katie W. brought up a great point about the difference between cultural and moral relativism. It’s not a matter of allowing everyone to do whatever they want to their people, but understanding why a particular culture does things a certain way. In this day and age we cannot justify mass murder, but on the same token, how can we justify letting people starve in underdeveloped regions because they drew the globalization short straw? It is true in our very global society that any country active globally has to accept that genocide, slavery, massive suppression of particular groups, and other actions of the like just are NOT acceptable by the mainstream global culture. It doesn’t mean to say we’re imposing Western morals on different groups, but we do all have to adopt an inherent respect for our fellow man/woman regardless of their distinguishing characteristics. A UDHR that dictates respect for others’ differences can be considered universal because the world has gotten too small to handle hatred and discrimination of any kind.
It is certainly necessary to discuss the merits of the UDHR from a scholarly, academic perspective, debating about its universality, absoluteness, and relativism. If I learned one thing from reading Plato’s Meno it is that before we can ask higher level questions, we must first establish what it is we are really discussing. In this regard, Brianne, I completely agree with you that some areas have more pressing needs than “holidays with pay.” That argument is based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Without a fulfillment of the physiological needs, self-actualization cannot occur; without enough food for a family’s survival, the ability to join a trade union is not in the realm of consideration.
DeleteBut I think what is ultimately a much more powerful debate in human rights is how we can take the principle objectives - the sentiment - of the UDHR and translate those into tangible action. That is, when we reach a certain landmark along that peak of "moral possibility," we inherit a responsibility to start fulfilling some of those needs which were first identified. This would undoubtedly irritate Socrates, but let’s ignore the first question of whether, for example, access to clean water is a fundamental human right and making a working assumption that it is. But what does it mean that clean water is a right? Should everyone be provided clean water for free? Do you have the right to be able to pay for clean water? What happens when water is scarce? How should its distribution be prioritized? Similar questions can be posed for the right “to own property.” If you already own property, is that right safeguarding your ability to keep owning it? There also exists another perspective of analysis through negation: if you do not own property, then are you ignoring your own rights?
Furthermore, who is this a contract between? I am not posing the question of why we have these rights, or if these rights were bestowed on us in an ethereal sense, but rather what parties are responsible for the transaction of rights? Is this a document between a government and the people, with the government responsible for ensuring the fulfillment of rights? Or are these rights principles that are actualized from human to human, that is, on a more individualistic sense between neighbors and a local community?
Clearly, the amount of “what if” scenarios can quickly spiral out of control and go far beyond the universal, general statements the UDHR seeks to make. But it is important to strike a balance: do not lose sight of or undermine the sentiment of the UDHR, but also maintain a realistic focus. If these rights, objectives, or whatever you may call them were being fulfilled, there would be no need to create declarations and international guidelines. To use a simple analogy: you do not put on your grocery list something which you already have. So we have this list of items to purchase, and in the end, we may decide we really do not need something. But how do we go from the list to the item? How do we take a list of articles and implement them to improve the human condition?
Brianne brings up a great point, that the difference between moral and cultural relativism is key to understanding the argument our class had about the UDHR. Cultural norms such as the oppression of women in the Middle East are understandable from a cultural relativism standpoint - thousands of years of history, religion, and social necessities are culminating in cultures where women are seen as lesser beings. However, what the UDHR is trying to do is take a stand against moral relativism, and is trying to establish a philosophical framework for what we should strive toward as a species. There is nothing in the declaration that I would classify as morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteObviously, if everything in the declaration was imposed on the entire world this instant, the results would be chaotic. As addressed in class, different countries are at different stages of development, and trying to impose mandatory work vacations in countries without access to clean water would be like trying to teach calculus to a three-year-old. However, the UDHR is not a concrete plan or a call to action, but merely the UN's best ideas for what we should be working toward, ethically. I think the UDHR was deliberately structured with the most basic rights first, and more complex ones at the end: it follows the basic structure of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and I would like to believe that the intent of the document followed this same logical progression: the most basic rights are the ones which should be our top priority, and once those have been taken care of, higher-order rights naturally follow. When people have enough food and water, they can go to school, and then can think about mandating vacation time. This is a process that usually takes many generations.
More philosophically, I think the most important aspect of the UDHM is not the nitty-gritty specifics of what rights are outlined, but rather that it shows that the global community thinks that having a "universal" set of rights is correct and important. As I mentioned earlier, taking a stand against moral relativism is important: if we accept that moral judgments are relative, and differ from culture to culture, then we are implying that human worth is relative and differs from culture to culture. I see no reason why my worth as a woman in the US should be any different from my worth if I happened to be born in Saudi Arabia, because I don't see people in Saudi Arabia as fundamentally different, in a moral sense. Lincoln's point about moral relativism as a form of racism seems absolutely correct to me. I might accept that I can't impose my moral values on other cultures for logistical reasons (I have no way of doing so without just making the problems worse), but that doesn't mean I'm going to hold them to different moral standards in my own mind.
"...but rather that it shows that the global community thinks that having a "universal" set of rights is correct and important."
DeleteTo me, global transcendence to this kind of understanding was the main stand-out point in Arendt about the importance of the American and French revolutions. Pre-revolution, your birth dictated what rights you received: nobles received one kind while commoners received another. Moving from this type of thought to the idea that all people are born with the same fundamental rights was a huge step, both philosophically and culturally. But, to give some benefit of the doubt to the authors of the UDHM, culture moves slowly. This document was written a mere 2 centuries after the American revolution, which, when concerning cultural things, is quite not much time at all.
At one point in American history, there were "White's only" pay phones. What's a pay phone?
In regards to moral relativism being a form of racism, I would like to discuss historical happenings that have been forged in the minds of Americans: WWII, 9/11, and slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe world saw atrocities of which they had never seen during the years of WWII: cultural genocide, mass arial bombings, and, of course, the "LIttle Boy" that tumbled from its winged mother, the "Enola Gay." Americans use the term "the Greatest Generation" to describe those who fought for and oiled the war machine during WWII. Americans and Jew's also use the term "Never Forget" concerning concentration camps and the horrors associated with that dark epoch in history. 9/11, the darkest day for Americans so far in the 21st century, similarly uses the term "We Will Never Forget" in order to remember that we must stay vigilant against the enemies of freedom and democracy. There is no denying the maliciousness of these actions.
But what about slavery? What remembrance do Americans pursue so that they must never relive the days where a persons skin color dictated the level of marginalization they received? Unfortunately, America does not. It seems obvious that if America became aware of concentration camps being utilized to the extent they were in WWII, war would be imminent. But, if slavery were as widespread in another country as it was in America pre-Civil War, would America intercede militarily and cite human rights as justification? I'm not entirely sure we would. Slavery is apparent in many forms around the world and I haven't seen America call out anybody for wrong doing. It seems that moral relativism not only allows American ideals to be imposed onto non-American cultures, but it also allows America to forget (or at least try to) specific American history, as long as it is unsavory.
Moral relativism is the belief that there are no universal standards for judging what is right and what is wrong. Shane, you cannot possibly say that America operates as a moral relativist because our founding documents do the exact opposite. They create a basis of treatment for all peoples in the country. Now I know it didn't perfectly start that way but literally every political moment that has succeed in the country has been aimed at expanding the rights held in the Constitution to different groups in the American people.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, moral relativism cannot be a form of racism because it doesn't operate with such things. I think an argument can be made that cultural relativism (perspective based analysis of another way of life) can lead to a sense of racism as some will use it to explain horrors like slavery and violence against women. But, cultural relativism is only a tool for analysis . When done correctly, cultural relativism explains these horrors in a way that helps find their cause and potential solutions, and when done poorly it excuses these atrocities as cultural differences to be expected and accepted. Cultural relativism can lead to racism, but moral relativism doesn't even see fault in racism. We evoked cultural relativism in our discussion of the UDHR because we felt that many of the "rights" overstepped cultural bounds. No one, I certainly hope, would have made the moral relativism argument against the document, as moral relativism condones and almost encourages the historic events that document is trying to avoid repeating.
"... you cannot possibly say that America operates as a moral relativist because our founding documents do the exact opposite. They create a basis of treatment for all peoples in the country."
DeleteTo this I must defer to an old cliche, "actions speak louder than words." I get it. The founding fathers, of which there were slave owners, career soldiers and politicians, as well as known self-proclaimed womanizers, compiled documents stating such wonderful statements as "all men are created equal"and "We the People." But how many decades later are there still marginalized groups in America fighting for the equalities that others take for granted? 1? 2? 20? I do not look at America's founding documents and see the actions of America over the last 200 years as collinear. I look at the founding documents and see about the same thing I see in the UDHR; an idealistic basis for which we as a country can strive towards.
So, again, I defer: "actions speak louder than words." To me, there is no universal standard America uses to judge right from wrong (unless economics can be considered into this argument). If this were the case, should we not be searching our own country for WMD's or asking Congress to sign a declaration of war against ourselves for the fact that we know we have WMD's? If this were to happen, then yes, I would say America uses consistent metrics to decipher what is right and what is wrong. But, just because the Declaration of Independence uses egalitarian language does not suggest America acts within those same bounds, even with its own people. The fact that political movements have had to be fought in the first place should suggest that.
And finally, ask any black, gay, or disabled person if they think they are treated as well as any white, straight, and abled person and you may be surprised to find out how many obstacles they face on a daily basis due solely to their pigmentation, sexual orientation, or physical abilities and not purely by the "content of their character." It would be nice if seeing was believing, but sometimes it is what we do not see that is the actual problem.
If I may, I would like to suggest a reading: http://www.nymbp.org/reference/WhitePrivilege.pdf
This is a marvelous discussion! My question then for all of you is the following: Is the UDHR revolutionary? If yes, do we classify it as more the liberation stage or the foundation for freedom stage, according to Hannah Arendt's concept of revolution?
ReplyDeleteI know this comment's a bit outdated now; I wrote it last night but had a sharp disagreement with Blogger, so it's only getting posted now.
ReplyDeleteThe key issue I had with the UDHR is that I feel that outlining every candidate human right cheapens the document’s statements on more basic human rights. Should Article 1(“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”) really be regarded as equal in importance to Article 24 (the much maligned vacation time article)? My feeling is no. Wikipedia (admittedly not a very reputable source) mentions in its article on the UDHR FDR’s four freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. I think most of what can truly be regarded as universal human rights is summed up in those more concise terms.
With regards to relativism, I must admit I had never thought of the issue in terms of racism, though I find the argument very intriguing. (Indeed, I delayed this post a couple of days to ponder the implications – I think I’m still pondering a little.)
Ultimately, I agree with the idea expressed by Brianne – that there are certain baseline requirements for morality. Additionally, I hold that there are essentially tiers of morality, ranging from the totally absolute to the totally relativistic.
The totally absolute tier would include such things as genocide or rape – things that are 100% wrong and should not be justified. (That doesn’t necessarily mean that no argument could be constructed to justify them – it just means that that argument would start from a bad premise.)
The tier below that would include things that are generally wrong but might be legitimately justified based on circumstances, such things as theft. It is generally illegal, and rightfully so, but could also be justified in cases of starvation or other dire circumstances.
Below that, there might be a tier of things that are wrong for particular people and/or in particular circumstances. These things might be motivated by culture (e.g. Is it appropriate to go naked in Golden?) or by age (e.g. Is it appropriate to throw a tantrum in the grocery store?) or by other context (e.g. Is it appropriate to swear in front of your grandmother?). At this lowest tier “moral” is starting to melt into polite, but there can be breaches of etiquette which resemble moral offenses; in certain cultures, hospitality comes to mind.
I grew up in a position of privilege in the developing world. I brought with me the cultural inheritance of my mother’s British childhood and my father’s German roots. I wore the face of an American living abroad (although I had never lived in the United States). Often I stood out as being the person who literally looked different. In the backyards of my childhood in the Middle East, Central America, and more predominately, West Africa, I found more commonalities with my peers once I could bridge the language divide. There were always social morays and cultural traditions to learn, but more often than not I found I shared similar dreams, aspirations, and the sense of what was right and what was wrong.
ReplyDeleteDuring our time in West Africa, my father and mother, a doctor and nurse, respectively, would pack my brother and me up during school breaks for trips to South Africa where they ran a teaching clinic for aspiring black doctors. Apartheid was in full force. The dominate culture propagated a brutal political and cultural caste system. But the people we met there, the families that gave us shelter close to the clinic took great risks; they knew apartheid was wrong. We knew it was wrong. Our friends wanted liberation, but more so they needed the same, permanent freedoms as white South Africans. After generations of revolution, the initial liberation that came from the fall of apartheid has opened more opportunities to live an autonomous life.
Respecting other cultures is necessary to the human condition. Tolerance and humility are virtues. And it is also a virtue to have the courage to oppose injustice as was done by some in Nazi Germany, others in apartheid South Africa, and with the 1963 March on Washington, to name only a few.
I am impressed with the courage and clarity of the comments on the first blog. I highly recommend reading “The Challenges of Cultural Relativism” from The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels: (http://www3.nd.edu/~bgoehrin/literature/Rachels.html). He challenges cultural relativism when he discusses female genital mutilation. There is reason and reason enough based on the facts of the case to disapprove of doing female genital mutilation by ourselves or others. Even if it is a cultural belief that without such mutilation the girl will grow up to be an uncontrollable woman who brings shame upon her house.
Presenting a universal and absolute code that all people agree to is probably more than we can achieve. Nonetheless, what does the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) symbolize? What is its purpose? How have things changed since 1948 when the first attempt at declaring equal rights for all human beings was penned? Perhaps by sharing a common ground of ethical ideals it felt like progress, a way to build a method of thinking and acting? I wonder if the most inclusive of all declarations (it includes access to clean water, for example) the South African Bill of Rights (http://www.info.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons2.htm)
found its post-apartheid inspiration from the UDHR written 51 year earlier?
After the class discussion last Wednesday night a few thoughts came to my mind. It has been refreshing to read the comments on the blog and hear more in depth explanations of each person's viewpoint. I was a bit confused at what I perceived to be a high level of hostility towards the document the night we were discussing it. Essentially I saw it was a declaration, ratified by over 48 countries from all over the world, aimed at simply declaring that every human being is worthy of having, what they considered fairly basic rights. I understand that at the time not all countries were members of the UN. As Brianne pointed out only 3 African countries voted for the declaration. Another way to say this, however, is that no African countries voted against it. The countries who abstained were almost all communist countries dominated by the USSR at the time, with the exception of Saudi Arabia and South Africa (I don't feel it is too hard to understand their motivations), and two countries (Honduras and Yemen) did not appear for the vote. Thus I felt the criticism that it was rich western countries "imposing" this declaration is invalid. Furthermore, I would pose the following question: Is it more arrogant for the United Nations to declare that all people should have these rights, or for a group of privileged college students to declare this declaration useless and arrogant?
ReplyDeleteThe concept that actions speak larger than words, as Shane mentioned, is indeed important and I can understand the criticism that this is an unenforceable declaration. However, I do not see it as being harmful. As found on Wikipedia (I know, not the perfect source; if I had more time I would hunt down and document these, but I don't): Parts of the declaration have been adopted in or has influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It has also served as the foundation for a growing number of national laws, international laws, and treaties, as well as regional, national, and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights. I see this as a positive influence. The UN has actually promoted some good ideas, yay!
Lastly, while I understand the sentiment that people need basic needs such as clean water over equal pay for equal work, or what have you, I don't understand how this invalidates the document. Why can't we demand and work towards them getting both. To me this implies that the document should be amended and improved, not tossed out because it doesn't address every conceivable right. It seemed to me that the statement that most people had issue with was the one pertaining to the paid day off. Many of us see this as an excess because we are used to the idea that you can make enough money to have non paid days off. For some in the world, taking a day off would mean falling short of providing for basic needs, especially so when the document was written. I believe the idea of a paid day off was for those cannot afford unpaid days off. Of course, if you make enough on the days you work for the days you don't, you don't really need paid days off. Once again, this seems like something what could be better phrased or expressed, but the basic idea that everyone is entitled to a rest I believe to be important. The oppressed workers of the world want access to clean water and basic necessities, but they should also have some time off and so forth. We need not discard the one in order to have the other.