-1

This question already has an answer here:

What are human rights?

With so many cultures in the world, is it possible to determine what rights should be intrinsic to all humanity?

Is it fair to criticize a separate culture's "human rights" values within their own sovereignty?

marked as duplicate by user19563, virmaior, Isaacson, Swami Vishwananda, Thomas Klimpel Jun 5 '17 at 12:18

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • There are two different questions here: one in the title, and one in the body. Could you clarify which one you actually want to ask, and provide more context to your question? Can you clarify how this is a philosophical question as defined in the help center? – Keelan May 31 '17 at 14:07
0

There is another similar question active on this topic: Do human rights exist?

What are human rights?

With so many cultures in the world, is it possible to determine what rights should be intrinsic to all humanity?

There are several good answers in the other post, and rather than rewriting the whole thing, I am just going to point to that.

Is it fair to criticize a separate culture's "human rights" values within their own sovereignty?

As an addendum to the answer I contributed, I would argue that since human rights are artificial, they must be strictly confined to the sovereignty of those who agree to them. The inexorable rights described in the US constitution are limited to those with in US borders and US citizens abroad who are still protected by the US government. There are several international accords and agreements that would be applied to the those participating nations, but to extend them further becomes a suspect endeavour.

To expand into my own opinion, the correct way to protect those rights universally would be to extend invitations to all people to join your culture and reap the protections that it awards them. As with other issues of sovereignty, it is not correct to dictate to those people who have not consented to your laws (either explicitly or tacitly). As I state in my other answer, the natural distaste for the suffering of others is intrinsic to the nature of humanity, but it cannot be justification to assert one's moral, political, religious or other perspective on those who do not ascribe to it. There is an equivalence in interference, regardless of justification, that cannot be parsed between right and wrong.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.