Cultural Interpretation and Universal Human Rights: A Response to Daniel A. Bell

In: Political theory: an international journal of political philosophy, Band 27, Heft 6, S. 840-848

Abstract

Daniel Bell (1998) argues that it is wrong for Western cultures to simply impose their view of "universal human rights" on non-Western societies. He contends that a justification for universal human rights should instead be found within a country's own cultural traditions. Here, it is argued that Bell's approach is inadequate. Fundamental human rights must depend on a nonparochial approach. Further, all people are entitled to human rights based simply on their humanity. What Bell describes as "Western" moral principles are, in fact, nothing more than human moral principles. It is contended that history has proven the impossibility of reforming a country's approach to human rights while demeaning cultural traditions remain. Bell claims that the leaders of the Tiananmen Square uprising were rebelling within the confines of their own cultural traditions; he is incorrect in this assumption. Instead, Chinese dissidents were utilizing the ideals of Western liberalism to press for their own freedoms. Adapted from the source document.