The Universality of Human Rights
Originally posted 11/10/19
As a topic so difficult to broach and define, the definition and parameters of human rights are constantly changing. Thus, it is no surprise that nations and individuals are constantly trying to find the best way to do so. Recently, Mike Pompeo, the current U.S. Secretary of State, called a commission to reexamine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a historical document established by the United Nations to set a common standard of morality in 1948. His commission aims to clearly distinguish between ad hoc, or rights contingent on the country’s general population, and universal rights (Marino, The Washington Post). While a consistent reevaluation of human rights is important, this commission may inappropriately use its definition of human rights as a means to political ends, threaten pre-existing women’s and LBTQ+ rights, and narrow the definition of human rights to fit into American ideals. The controversial formation of the commission demonstrates the ambiguous nature of human rights, but the essential nature can be understood in two general principles: one, that it should be universally applied, and two, that it should serve to protect the dignity of one’s humanity. The implication of such a definition is that there exists a universal moral truth, an overarching, external truth of morality regardless of the perceiver.
A Universal Moral Truth
While individuals’ perceptions of what is moral are relative, the actual moral truth exists absolutely and independently of rational beings; thus, there should be a universal understanding and application of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established with this theory in mind; representatives from multiple countries came together to decide on a single set of universal foundation for human rights. Skeptics may argue that there is no such thing as an absolute truth and rather ascribe to moral relativism, the belief that the ethicality of a certain position is dependent on the person or culture. And while it is impossible to “prove” the existence of a universal truth, disproving the alternatives can help affirm this theory. Firstly, the statement that an absolute truth does not exist is an inherent contradiction, as the statement itself would be false. By the Law of Contradiction, there is an establishment that absolute truth does exist. Secondly, if one ascribes to the principle of moral relativism, should honor killings or female genital mutilation be considered moral simply because certain cultures believe it to be the morally “correct”? The majority of humans would agree that these are immoral circumstances, but if ethics were based on the perceiver, the implications of moral relativism are that other countries should not interfere with these traditions, even if they are violations of human rights. In addition to the religious divine command theory that states that God is the distributor of a universal moral truth, the universality of morals is also supported by philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed that morality is the objective law of reason. Kant theorized that rational truth existed a priori, or externally from, rational beings parallel to the manner that physical laws such as gravity existed a priori to physical beings (Kant 1785). This meant that there is a universal ruling on whether or not something is moral, regardless of circumstance, culture, or perceiver. If this theory were to be accepted, human rights need to be applicable equally amongst every person, group, or state regardless of whether or not it is deserved. The distribution of human rights cannot be contingent on certain prerequisites and should be indiscriminate. The implications of a universal moral truth are important to begin unpacking the parameters of human rights.
The Issue With Ad Hoc Rights
Another implication of the existence of a universal moral truth is that human rights should not simply be dependent on U.S. political tradition, one of the major criticisms of the Commission on Unalienable Rights that was created to “ground our discussion of human rights in America’s founding principles” (Pompeo 2019). The problem with this goal is that allowing countries to create human rights laws contingent on individual countries can allow immoral activities and policies. Supporters of the commission may argue that because the citizens of the country will still be able to decide these ad hoc rights, it is more adaptable and representative of that population. However, the fair and equal establishment of ad hoc rights is unrealistic because dictatorships or corrupt governments can easily wield the definition of human rights as a weapon to achieve their own means, and prevent the civilians from true representation. The concept of moral relativism gives immoral actions the prerogative to argue for a perverse human rights campaign. Even if the country is a democracy, in which the opinions of most of the citizens have a voice, an entire country can never be truly represented. Individuals will always vary in opinion, and while there still should exist laws that can depend on the circumstances of the country, something as important and universally experienced as human rights need to be universally applied. The concept of ad hoc rights itself is a violation of a universal moral truth, implying that morals are relative. Thus, there is a need for universal human rights to be established, just as it was done in 1948.
Not only was the commission formed with little to no input from the State Department’s human rights division, the commission members all hold similar views concerning LGBTQ and women’s rights. The call for ad hoc rights is exemplified by Commission Chair Mary Ann Glendon through her anti-abortion policies. Glendon believes that women’s rights are not necessarily human rights, as doing so makes the definition of human rights inflexible and over-politicized. Under her assumption, abortion is not a human right, and thus, providing universal access to should not be legal. This potential withdrawal of access to abortion in itself is dangerous, but the implications of the opposite are that all women should not be treated equally depending on that particular nation’s allocation of women’s rights. As all women are equally human, the laws that protect their rights need to be established on a universal platform.
Addressing Concerns about Politicization
Many supporters of the commission have voiced similar opinions about the supposed over-politicization of human rights by progressives. They affirm the commission is necessary to prevent people from inappropriately expanding the definition, which consequently gives the government an obligation to support such groups. This is partially why Glendon’s anti-abortion policies are questionable in the context of this commission, as excluding abortion from the definition of human rights may prevent access to it. A similar issue can be seen in the call for a solution to homelessness. Aaron Rhodes, president of the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe, believes there is “a proliferation and consequent dilution of human rights... when human rights advocates campaign for a human right to sanitation, it diverts our attention from basic rights like freedom of speech or freedom from torture” (Rhodes, Wall Street Journal). While these basic rights are important, it does not diminish the necessity of human sanitation, or other rights to human dignities. The right to maintain human dignity -- the right to be valued, respected, and treated ethically -- is the second element of the essential nature of defining human rights, which should respond to injustices. Therefore, the goal of the commission to narrow the definition of human rights is flawed. Furthermore, Pompeo’s decision to appoint a panel of politically similar members with the motive to separate politics from ethics is hypocritical, as the purpose of the commission would set sinister political precedents. The Human Rights First released a statement that harshly paints the commission as “an attempt to rationalize a caste system of rights to exclude LGBTQ people and those in need of family planning.” It also allows Pompeo to legitimize the global gag rule, preventing the U.S. from giving foreign aid to organizations who support projects no longer considered as human rights, such as abortion (Marino, Washington Post). While the purpose of the commission is probably not so cynical and polarizing, the lack of diversity in beliefs does raise the question of the bias and unethicality that exists within the commission. Either way, human rights have always been closely tied with politics, but molding the definition of human rights to fit into preconceived political beliefs defeats the purpose of attempting to honestly seek a universal moral truth.
A Necessity for Reevaluation
While the Commission for Unalienable Rights possesses questionable motives, there does exist a need to reexamine the definition of human rights. Conceiving the commission within the U.S. is inherently problematic because striving toward universal moral truth requires the perspective of those from other countries. A larger diversity of people with contrasting opinions and backgrounds will help create a more comprehensive idea of human rights. For example, in 1948, the UN declaration was conducted by members of many countries, not simply those who conform to the neoliberal definition of human rights that the U.S. does (United Nations 1948). Additionally, having a thorough and fleshed out definition for human rights requires diversity and controversy in opinions within the committee, something that has not been established by the Trump administration’s commission. The UN declaration was also formed by a group with a plethora of different legal and political backgrounds. Thus, any commission that hopes to redefine human rights should be also be hosted by an international organization such as the United Nations and should invite a diverse group of people. Regardless, the definition of human rights does require reevaluation due to changing environmental and social factors. After all, societies are constantly improving and bringing more rights to more people in a more equal manner. The standard of living is constantly improving, implying that our understanding of human rights is getting closer to this universal moral truth.
Evolution of How We Define Human Rights
Some believe that human rights are constantly evolving throughout history and are social constructs contingent on the values of society today. But following the principle of a universal moral truth means that human rights are not changing; rather, there is an increase of human understanding and awareness of what defines human rights. For example, while most modern people accept that slavery violates human rights, slavery was accepted mere decades ago. One of the main factors that caused white people to reevaluate the morality behind slavery and cause the American Civil War was actually Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. As people read about the atrocities slaves endured, they began to question the ethics of enslaving an entire race. After selling around 300,000 within a year, many Union soldiers said her book was the reason they enlisted, and the British government realized that the popularity of the book would prevent them from supporting the South’s cotton industry (Harriet Beecher Stowe Center). Thus, the growing interconnectedness, access to information, and mass communication that humans have access to today have contributed to a higher awareness of what the universal moral truth should be. This awareness, not actual human rights themselves, has evolved to allow humans to strive toward a society that attempts to get closer to a universal moral truth, which is why there exists a necessity to continue reevaluating previous definitions of human rights.
Seeking the Right Answer
If there does exist a universal truth, can we, as humans, know what this truth is? How can we hope to achieve the “right” definition of human rights? Those who believe in the Christian God attribute this sense of morality, and thus the likely foundation of what human rights should be, to God’s Ten Commandments. But a universal definition of morality is not limited to the religious perspective. If we adhere to Kant’s idea of a detached morality, then it is essentially near impossible to be aware of the real truth, but we can attempt to get closer through both rational thinking and intuition. At a USC book talk with Phil Zuckerman about What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life, he postulates that people can simply follow the golden rule, or the principle that one should treat others the way they want to be treated. While this idea has religious undertones and origins, it is the beginning to understanding what guides our rational decision making processes in the context of morality and shows that most humans have a consciousness, or an innate sense of what is right and wrong. Thus, defining human rights requires a keen sense of empathy to frame the general principles. This empathy easily fits into the essential nature of human rights; it should be a universal preservation of human dignity.
Pompeo’s commission in reevaluating human rights is a wrong step toward achieving a universal moral truth; human rights need to be applied universally, not ad hoc. And to achieve a universal truth of what human dignities need to be protected, to form a comprehensive understanding of morality, diversity in opinions and backgrounds united by the intention to preserve the essential nature of human rights are necessary.
Bibliography
Berkowitz, Peter, and Rcp. “Criticisms Illustrate Need for State Dept. Human Rights Panel.”
RealClearPolitics, 15 Sept. 2019, www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/15/criticisms_illustrate_need_for_state_dept_human_rights_panel_141238.html.
Editor, Letters to the. “Opinion | Unalienable Rights Cannot Exclude Anyone.” The Washington
Post, WP Company, 28 Aug. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/unalienable-rights-cannot-exclude-anyone/2019/08/28/c836183a-c84b-11e9-9615-8f1a32962e04_story.html.
Kant, Immanuel, and James W. Ellington. Ethical Philosophy: the Complete Texts of Grounding
for the Metaphysics of Morals, and Metaphysical Principles of Virtue, Part II of The Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Pub. Co., 1983.
Plummer, Christopher. “Diverse Coalition Calls for Disbanding State Department Commission
on Unalienable Rights.” Human Rights First, www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/diverse-coalition-calls-disbanding-state-department-commission-unalienable-rights.
Rhodes, Aaron. “Opinion | Pompeo Tries to Rescue the Idea of Human Rights.” The Wall Street
Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 10 June 2019, www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-tries-to-rescue-the-idea-of-human-rights-11560207792.
Toosi, Nahal. “Trump's 'Natural Law' Human Rights Panel Readies for Launch.” POLITICO, 4
July 2019, www.politico.com/story/2019/07/03/human-rights-panel-1398636.
Webit. “Stowe's Global Impact.” Harriet Beecher Stowe Center,
www.harrietbeecherstowecenter.org/harriet-beecher-stowe/her-global-impact/.