SOUSA, D. A.; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5514490044258858; SOUSA, Deisy de Andrade.
Resumo:
This work presents the discussion involving the universalist and relativist conceptions
concerning to the reach of the human right rules, bringing initial concepts about these
rights and their main foundations, and then, the leading points of each side. By using the
deductive and dialectical methods and bibliographic research, it's intended to bring to
the surface the conflict between the two perceptions revealing their concepts and
arguments and the need to identify practical situations at the present time in which
violations of human rights are often hidden under the enhanced argument of the cultural
relativism. For the universalist chain, the human rights, which have been historically
constructed, have their foundation in the nature of the human person and his dignity,
giving an equal treatment to all people of the earth and inaugurating a period in which
situations of violation of these rights came to be the interest of the international
community and not just a domestic problem. The cultural relativist chain defends its
position explaining that each society has its own system of values, its moral and ethics,
which are constructed and historically affirmed under the influence of this society
experiences and its cultural values. All this context ends also influencing the perception
of human rights in this society which establishes its scale of values from its experiences.
From this angle, the conception of universal human rights is unusefull by not granting
space to the cultural peculiarities of each site. Furthermore, the claim of universalists, in
the view of their opponents, would be a flagrant facet of western imperialism which
actually tries to universalize its values, leading to the destruction of cultural diversity. To
illustrate the conflict the work presents the practical cases of female circumcision in
Muslim countries and the practice of infanticide in several Brazilian Indian tribes. The
circumcision, to preserve the woman's sexual purity and the honor of the family, consist
in cutting her clitoris or in some cases the complete mutilation of her organ. In the case
of indigenous there's a tradition of murdering children who born physically or mentally
handicapped, twin or other situations that make them undesirable. In both situations the
relativist chain defends not to accept external interference, explaining that it's a cultural
tradition which should be respected. Both indigenous and Muslims have their own ethics
that legitimizes their community practices. In the other hand the universalists find in
these cases two glaring forms of violations of human rights and right of life. It is finally
that the relativist theory of human rights, does not respond to the minimum standard of
universal human dignity established by the UN Declaration. The proposal presented in
the end, chose for a modest model which allow limited degree in cultural variations in the
way and in the interpretation of human rights, showing that is necessary, however, insist
on their moral and fundamental universalism.