Improbabilities

I think that even the fact that we are able to argue about cultural relativism seems to point to the impossibility of  a standard, universally practiced set of human rights. It would appear that there would be the possibility, based on the theory presented that most of our values, regardless of society, seem to revolve, at least in part, around whether certain actions are beneficial to a society or not. But even within the set of human rights set forth within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are some points which could be argued. For example, the right of parents to decide on the proper form of educating their child. It could be argued that every child should have the right to a certain education (say, for example, the traditional twelve to sixteen years provided for most American children), regardless of whether a child's parents want him or her to be educated only two years; or parents who do not believe that their child should be educated at all Many members of our society would find it in contradiction with the child's rights to deny them an education based only on their parents' discretion. It is a commonly touted trend in this society that those with a higher eduction level tend to make more money and enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle; the question would then be, is it right to deny a child that opportunity because his or her parents do not believe in traditional education? The very presence of that argument would imply that most human rights, not matter how logical they seem, can be amended and used in a way that seems wrong to our society. And if there is any argument in the practice, then the right could not be universally enforced. 

Another example would be article 18, which states that any person should be given the right to practice any religion he or she wishes without facing preventative measures or prejudice. It seems to be a fairly straightforward right, and one that should exist. But what about cults? Most people in our society would look at some religions as being cults, and regard the actions of the people who practice that religion as wrong. Again, the presence of the argument, and the rights of others to have their opinions against those actions, would prevent it from being a universally held right.

And though there are some rights which seem to be inarguable, the still have yet to be universally practiced. Like, for example, the right of a person to be free from arbitrary detention. I think many people would agree that a person should be imprisoned for no reason, but the reasons for imprisoning someone are wide and varied. Some people support, for example, the current detention of possible terrorists, though they have been given little evidence that those specific people are, in fact, terrorists. None of the evidence that they could be dangerous to the United States ha been publicly aired; but many people would argue that the evidence we have been given is enough. The question, I think, is two-fold: 1) could there be a universally held standard for human rights; and 2) if there were, would it be possible for those rights to be universally accepted and practiced. At this point, I don't think we, as a global society, are capable of adopting a set of universal rights, no matter how much we believe that there should be something to protect all members of all societies.