One of the crucial theoretical problems confronting human rights is the perception of its historical derivation related to the universal or relative character of the rights declared. Limited views on the origin of the concept are widespread and easily exploited to stymie die quest for human rights. Cultural-monopolist derivations of its origin have fed relativist but apologist arguments in developing countries. A cultural-universalist conception is not only possible but preferable. A contrary position would both contradict and deter the cause of human rights. To arrogate the concept to some groups, cultures and civilizations to die exclusion of others would be deleterious to the momentum toward universal consensus on human rights in at least two major ways. It would harden or ossify divisive tendencies and provide ammunition for apologist justification of violations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okey Martin Ejidike (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: