Clarifying The Universality Of Human Rights

Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is issued,it has been a hot debate whether human rights are universal or particular.From one point of view,due to different cultural background and uneven development condition of each country,the content of human rights should be allowed to vary accordingly.The opponents point out that emphasizing on the particularities of each country will undermine the validity of human rights.As a consequence,the universal meaning of human rights will be replaced by cultural relativism.This debate has lasted for more than fifty years and still remains unsettled.In my opinion,the reason why this debate cannot be settled is that it asks the wrong question.From the definition of human rights,its content is indivisible,interdependent and interrelated.That is to say,the content of human rights is not a menu that each country can choose from.Accepting the validity of human rights means acknowledging their indivisible nature.The so-called particularities only exist in the interpretations and implementation of human rights.Therefore,in order to formulate a meaningful discussion,not only should we quit understanding human rights as either universal or particular,but we should also redefine the relation between human rights and their particular interpretations.On this matter,the concept of universality that embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is too abstract to engage in the actual practice of human rights.The universality of human rights needs to develop into a specific principle so that it can decide which interpretation of human rights is valid.In the clarification of universality of human rights,Chinese scholars and Western scholars both meet with certain difficulties.They try to formulate a perfect theory of universality so that the influence of cultural particularities can be minimized,which is the approach I call the "top-down way".Facing the challenges that human rights try to be universalized in different countries,the top-down way cannot offer a practical principle that helps human rights' practice.On the contrary,it deepens the gap between practice and theories.Therefore,in order to clarify the universality of human rights,I propose an approach called the "down-top way".Comparing to the top-down way,it has two differences.Firstly,the down-top way does not set up a perfect theory of universality superior to all the interpretations of human rights in different countries nor try to transform those interpretations by the perfect theory.Secondly,the down-top way regards social and cultural particularities as driving forces of universalizing human rights,not the obstacles.From the perspective of down-top way,the universality of human rights is actually the result of dialogues and interaction between different countries'interpretations of human rights.in the process of universalizing human rights,it is not enough for the countries to solve their problems by means of traditional theories.For this reason,it is necessary for the international society to set up the dialogues between countries so that every country can learn from the experience of others.Making an example of the dialogue between Chinese scholars and Western scholars,I try to show that the down-top way of human rights is not only possible,but also desirable.In the first example,I try to find useful ideas in Confucianism that help solve problems in Western academic world.On the matter of human rights,some Western scholars relate the ontological sense of universality to cultural imperialism but they fail to point out what characters of ontological tradition are not suitable for justifying human rights.In this dissertation,I discuss the criticism of Western ontological philosophy by Heidegger,which indicates that the universality of ontological tradition is the result of setting up a first principle.Under this condition,the universal principle dominates the formulations of all particular principles.However,the particular principles cannot contribute to the formulation of the first principle.From this point,the particular interpretations of human rights cannot engage in the construction of universal human rights.By comparison,the Confucian approach of universality have two characters that different from the ontological sense of universality.Firstly,it regards the graded love as a driving force so that the particular principle in specific situations can develop into universal principles.Secondly,the Confucian approach of universality is seen as the unified principle of all the norms but not the highest principle.After further discussion,it can be concluded that the Confucian approach of universality is a better applicant for constructing an inclusive principle of human rights than the ontological approach of universality.In the second case,I try to show that the constructivism Western scholars develop can help Chinese scholars formulate a valid form of human rights.After several decades' practice of human rights,China has developed its own set of interpretations of human rights.Then,what should be the relation between the Chinese interpretations of human rights and those of other countries?The Western constructivism points out that it is not an effective way of defining human rights to turn anyone's view of point directly into an universal principle.Meanwhile,it will not lead to cultural relativism by admitting that every society can engage in the construction of human rights.On the matter of human rights,a valid form of subjective universality relies on the interactions between different countries'interpretations of human rights.From this point of view,China should engage actively in the construction of human rights by offering its own experience of practicing human rights.Besides,under the condition that human rights are constructed by all societies,the universal principle of human rights can regulate the practice of human rights in China.From the two examples above,I point out the necessity that Chinese scholars and Western Scholars search for theoretical resources outside their own tradition.We not only need admit the meaning of our own particularities,but also the meaning of the particularities of others.In this way,the "down-top" approach of human rights is possible,which takes all the interpretations of human rights into a domain of free discussion.As a result,both of the moderate interpretations and the extreme interpretations can be fully discussed.After that,the "down-top" way cannot guarantee a consensus between these interpretations.However,it can at least show the possible ways of how to universalize human rights to the international society,which may lead to the consensus between different countries.Therefore,there is the chance that extreme interpretations of human rights can change and find their way back to the international consensus of human rights.