Cosmopolitanism, Human Rights, and Cultural Diversity

Cosmopolitanism Rooted and Human Rights

Pluralist multiculturalism would be the best approach to defend cultural diversity. Globalization can be considered an imposition of a dominant and hegemonic culture.

A. Rooted Cosmopolitanism (Appiah)

• This is not a closed dialogue between cultures, but each different culture must be homogeneous and understand the others.
• In real life, the law is often marked by religious beliefs, making it difficult to reach an agreement.
• We should not focus on what we believe, but on what we do. We must find what unites us—a consensus to act.
• Difference is accepted while seeking unity. Appiah seeks to resuscitate the concept of the world citizen (No one is abroad).
• This declaration is based on the ideal of man and citizen rights.
• Rooted cosmopolitanism can occur among people of different cultures and races due to the human need for communication.

Universal values must be very general and should be interpreted according to the cultures without being reinterpreted or removed. However, universal values may conflict with the central ideas accepted by a cultural community.

B. Human Rights Declaration and Pluralism

The Human Rights Declaration is the basis of pluralism and rooted cosmopolitanism. Rights similar to the law include respect for life, human dignity, and equal rights.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Human Rights

• Advantage: They are not based on any metaphysical traditions or beliefs, allowing acceptance by different traditions.
• Disadvantage: Lacking a basic argument, they might not be accepted by individuals and states.

Despite cultural diversity, human rights are widely accepted globally. However, they have flaws:

1. Indetermination: Some cultures accept certain rights, while others do not.
2. Predicated Complex Facts: Rights are sometimes based on complex facts.
3. Arbitrary Expression: Issues like freedom and private property are subject to arbitrary expression.

Some human rights become confused with specific institutional structures, causing malfunction if not adapted to traditional cultures. The human rights discourse tends to overflow; they are not rights to specific goods but general terms for achieving them. We can require the State to provide conditions for acquiring goods, but not the goods themselves.

When a state declares a duty it cannot fulfill, this rhetorical abuse of human rights lessens their credibility. The declaration seems directed at states, but rights belong not only to states but also to people. Some companies prefer the language of legal and political rights, while others prefer the language of duty. A balance between rights and duties must be found.

Despite the above issues, human rights are widely accepted. We do not need to justify these rights because they are based on many metaphysical foundations. They have always demanded respect because behind them lie values of equality, respect, and dignity; therefore, they must be complied with.