Jain Digest 2004 11 Vol 23 No 4

Author(s): Federation of JAINA
Publisher: USA Federation of JAINA

Page 22

any circumstances, do not impose one cultural standard yet rather one legal standard of minimum protection. This standard, necessary of human dignity, was adopted through the UN and represents the hard-won community and not he cultural imperialism of the mightiest region or tradition. It protects the basic fundamental minimum standards of human dignity allowing maximum room of cultural identity and variations without violating others same rights. This way everyone wins.
The Vienna Declaration provided explicit consideration of culture in Human Rights promotion and protection by stating, "the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind." As Jack Donnelly points out, "The [universal] Declaration does list some rights that are best viewed as an "interpretation," subject to much grater cultural relativity. For example, the right of free and full consent of spouses reflects a specific cultural interpretation of marriage that is of relatively recent origin and by no means universal today." (Donnelly, 123) The flexibility of Human Rights, to be relevant to divers cultures, are facilitated by the stabled minimum standards and the incorporated cultural rights in universal Human Rights. In other words, the actual interpretation and application on a cultural level of these fundamental universal rights is most required taking in consideration the culturally diverse factors and life style of its nationals. For instance, although all humans have a right to marry and found a family, restricting couple to only one child in China is a legitimate legislation. Not allowing a culturally relative application of Human Rights endangers public safety in an extremely high population density environment constrained with dangerously limited resource most minimum to human survival.
Universality while Diversity
Is there not room, ethical moral, and adjustment for alliance among universal Human Rights and traditional cultures? Or do we lack the intellectual rational to incorporate both? Drawing on compatible practices and common values form diverse cultures would actually enhance and promote Human Rights protection on a larger level. Particular Human Rights are, as Gallie notes, "essentially contested concepts," in which there's a large general consensus of meaning, simultaneous to complex irresolvable conflict f interpretations. Here, culture provided a bow-worthy plausible and defensible mechanism for determining
interpretations.
Donnelly offers this example; "There are significant direct costs, as well as indirect costs, such as operation a legal system in accord with principles of due process, and protecting citizens against arbitrary or inhumane and degrading treatment by officials of the state." (Donnelly, 117) Further he analyzes the righ to work which is almost universally accepted yet might be interpreted as right to seek employment, right or be compensated for employment or
20/JAIN DIGEST⚫ Fall 2003 Jain Education International 2010_03
even unemployment or right to work with one's interest. This specificity will be absent from Human Rights lists or even those that do list it. Also, specifying the length and the amount of unemployment benefits, or the extent of vocational training results in large scales variations an can't possibly be universally applicable. Thus, traditional cultures should be approached and recognized as partners to promote greater respect for and observance of Human Rights.
Drawing on compatible practices and common values from traditional culture would enhance and advance Human Rights promotion and protection. This approach not only encourages greater tolerance, mutual respect and understanding, but also fosters more effective international cooperation for Human Rights. Rather than limit Human Rights to suit a given culture, why not draw on traditional cultural values to reinforce the application and relevance of universal Human Rights? Thus indigenous pluralism or universal Human Rights in culturally divers context is not an obstacle yet a fortification of Human Rights.
The defense for cultural relativism frequently includes or leads of the assertion that traditional cultures are sufficient to protect human dignity, and therefore universal Human Rights are unnecessary. Furthermore, the refute continues, universal Human Rights can be intrusive and disruptive to traditional protection of human life, liberty and security. (Kausikan, 122) In response, when traditional cultures do effectively provide such protection, then human rights by definition would be compatible, posing no threat to the traditional culture. As such, the traditional culture can better absorb and apply Human Rights, and the governing state should be in a better position not only to ratify, but also to effectively and fully implement the international standards. To refute the second objection that Human Rights can be substituted by traditions, it is hardly the case. "No government has yet shown how the distinct values f its culture justify torture, discrimination or so called disappearances," neither do they reply to the crises of nationals demanding the respect of their rights. (Sane, 19)
Traditional culture is a cultural context in which Human
Rights must be established, integrated, promoted, ad protected. Human Rights must be approached in a way that is meaningful and relevant in diverse cultural contexts since the supportive membership of global nations is its most generous strength. Thus it is not only feasible yet a necessity to view the universal Human Rights in the light of cultural diversity. Radical relativism views
human values, fro from being universal, vary a great deal according
to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativity to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of Human Rights that could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. If cultural traditions alone govern state compliances to international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violations of Human Rights would be given legitimacy. ON the other edge, extreme universality of (continued on Page 21)