Essay Example on Universal Rights: A Political Science Debate

Introduction

Political science has got a lot of things that are entailed in it, and different people have different views about certain aspects of the lives and rights of the people in various societies. As a result of this, there are so many arguments, and discussions held about such issues. One of the main issues which have always raised concerns among the people is that of the aspiration of universal rights, which dictate that there should be no discrimination of any person because of their ethnicity, race, faith, or even gender. Instead, all the people, even if they are from totally different areas and ethnic groups, should be considered as equal to each other.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The aspiration of universal rights goes to the extent of providing that there should be no view of even the male and female as different people regardless of the differences that exist in their gender and creation aspects. They are all morally equal, and they deserve equal treatment to each other in all the areas of life. A lot of questions have arisen concerning this provision and statement by the aspiration of universal rights. Some people feel that this universality of rights has gone the extra mile to include universality and equality to the areas which ought to be different. Similarly, some feel that this is the way to go and that the universal rights' aspiration works best to provide for equality among the people and avoid the vices related to discrimination based on the factors stated above, like gender, ethnicity, faith, or race. This paper aims at providing answers to such questions and an argument about whether this aspiration is good or bad, and this is regarding the multiculturalism looking at how different people of different cultures view the differences among the people.

Different Views about the Aspiration of Universal Rights

As stated earlier in the introduction segment, the aspiration of universal rights points out that there is no observable difference between the people and all the people should be taken or rather treated as morally equal despite the difference in their race, gender, faith, and ethnicity. In other words, according to this aspiration, there is no observable difference between the male and female, whites or blacks, Christians or Muslims, Americans, and Africans before this universality of rights. All the people are the same, and thus no one should, by any chance, discriminate on anyone just because of the differences. However, so many people feel that according to their cultures and the issue of multiculturalism, so many differences between people exist based on the above-stated dimensions. Thus the aspiration of universal rights has served more than it is supposed to serve as far as advocating for equality and fairness is concerned (Taylor). Therefore, the question of whether there is a problem or something wrong with the aspiration of universal rights still rises and has remained unanswered for quite a long time. The part below discusses whether the aspiration has got an issue or not according to the views presented about it by the different people of different cultures:

The Major View Points

Political view of universalism, there is an existing problem between various people on the validity of this universalism argument. Some things are viewed to be wrong in this universalism aspiration because it goes against the natural truth and the multicultural views and beliefs of genders, races, and faith of the people.

Various cultures of the people are different and are applied differently by different people; thus, the universalism aspiration that all people must be treated as equals is wrong and requires thorough revision to get things fixed. In the real sense, the male and female gender is so much different, and never at any given time will they be similar to one another. Political theorists need to argue out their views on the ways that can be used to promote equality of the people without interfering with multiculturalism and feminism ideas which support the primary and true differences between different people.

Traditional political theories have had a big take in creating the confusion of ideas about the aspiration of universal rights and multiculturalism and feminism. Instead of having the heated conflict between the political theories and the truth of the matter, it is vital to get the universalism view abandoned or the theory revised to live better to the universalism aspect. There are ways applicable to promote equality of the people without trying to convince the people that all cultures, genders, faith, races are the same, and there is no male and female, yet the difference is visible. The key thing is that there is a need to advocate for equality, but the truth can never be compromised by theories that have been coined. People are different in so many ways.

Is there something wrong with the aspiration of universalism?

The best argument about the aspiration of universalism has not yet been coined and proved to be true. The fact that different people perceive this aspiration differently has made it hard to come up with one general conclusion about it and all it argues about. Therefore, some feel that according to them, the aspiration has got issues which, if the chance is gotten, should be fixed to avoid contradiction with the people's cultures and beliefs. The main reason as to why people feel that the issue of moral equality for all has something wrong has all been created by the existence of multiculturalism in the various parts of the world (Calder). If only the people were of the same beliefs, cultures, and practices then telling them that they are all equal and that there is nothing like racial, ethnic, faith, and gender difference would not be a problem in any way because it would be easy for them to agree or disagree with this all at once simply.

Clearly, according to the way that this aspiration was coined or whatever it argues, there are so many things that are wrong with it. At any given time, there will be no point in all the people being the same in the whole world. Instead of this aspiration of universalism being structured this way, it should have been developed in such a way that it argues against discrimination of people because of their gender, race, ethnicity, or faith based on the general law of the land. Coming across people who already know and have in mind that they have a difference in race, and gender is not easy (Beauchamp). Gender and sexuality vary in differences and perceptions in different cultures. For example, Americans and Africans have a very different view of sex and gender that is they look at men and women in two different dimensions. The female and the male will always be accorded a different treatment in the workplace because of the virtue of being male or female.

When the aspiration of universal rights describes the equal moral treatment of all, then it is like a violation of the cultural provisions and beliefs of the people. Some roles are entirely known to be of men and others of women, and this varies from one culture to another. Now in a case where a female being denied a construction and building job in a site universalism aspiration terms this as discrimination based on gender, then it means that it wants to urge the people to do away with what they know concerning their cultures and act according to what the universalism rights propose. Similarly, in families, religious places, in politics and the social lives of the people, females, and males are associated with different tasks and duties, and one gender is not expected to do what has been entirely preserved and is known to be of the opposite gender (Taylor). In such areas, then adherence to the cultural beliefs and practices cannot in any way be termed as discrimination against gender just because the universalism aspiration exists. The people will have to stick to what their cultures dictate them with the female following their route and males theirs as far as roles and responsibilities.

It should be noted that the culture of the people strongly dictates and determines what is to be done by the people and what takes place in the society as far as the ethnicity, race, and faith of the people is concerned. The application of cultural practices and beliefs, thus, extends even to the workplace because the people grow and live by what they have been cultivated in them right from childhood (Miller). Due to the perception of cultures that people are different because of their gender, faith, race, and ethnicity, cases which are termed as discrimination based on this factor have been seen to increase. Still, in the real sense, this is not discrimination, but exactly what the people know about their cultures.

Therefore, the problem with the aspiration of universalism, in general, is that it aims at confining and fitting all the people from all parts of the world into one "box" so that they live by the notion that they are equal and similar in all aspects. The fact remains that the assumption that all people are equal and similar cannot be made the lives of the people yet, and their nature shows how different they are (Nussbaum). It would have been better for these rights of universalism to be created with a certain kind of limit that does not confuse the people about their difference of sex, abilities, origins, and roles. Moreover, it should have just been based on the law and simply state that unauthorized discrimination of people in various fields based on the above is wrong as per the law, thus urge people to treat each other with respect and dignity in observation of the law of humanity.

Traditional Approaches to Political Theory of Contemporary Theories of Distributive Justice

The traditional methods to political theory and contemporary theories of distributive justice in the society are mortified of the aspiration of universalism motive. The traditional approach, despite their advocacy for equality of all the people and equal moral treatment, has been challenged to prove the argument about homogeneity. The sameness or homogeneity in the feminism theories has been challenged by the theory of multiculturalism and what is entailed in multiculturalism. Pointing out a few things about homogeneity and how the traditional theories have embraced it, the people cannot in any way be perceived as the same in all aspects. Feminism itself proves in so many ways how homogeneity is not possible because the truth holds that women and men are not the same, and they will never be (Miller).

A good example is the sharing of duties at home for males and females. Statistics and research have proved that the distribution of family roles gives women more duties and responsibilities than men. However, most men tend to argue that they do more than women in their families as far as bringing up children and other tasks are concerned. Taking a case of feminism activists who are couples, the situation of childbirth proves them against their feminism ideas and views of equal males and females in the workplace and the other vital areas.

Feminism women at childbirth can no longer carry their duties as usual, and they have to remain home and do what it takes in the bringing up of children. On the contrary, feminism men can still carry on with their duties at all times with nothing to limit them. Just through this situation of parenting and childbirth, homogeneity or sameness of all the people is challenged in a big way. The data obtained out of this is that equal trial can be fought for, but this cannot make the male and female the same in all aspects because they have natural differences that cannot be changed or altered by the political theories (Miller). There it is objectionable to say that the traditional theories of homogeneity cannot be fully applied in ensuring...