Modern international human rights originated from the West and evolved with the changes in Western cultures. The United States' dismissal of Khashoggi's case resembles the restriction of human rights to only the Western definition. Western governments' decisions on when to intervene are selective based on their judgment of which events require intervention. Due to the selectivity in intervention and restriction to Western interpretations of human rights, the United States does not exactly value human rights in light of its dismissal to Khashoggi's death. Modern international human rights exclude non-Western cultures like Eastern societies and indigenous groups, as these cultures do not participate in the discussion on human rights. For example, modern human rights emphasize individuality. Individuality is not a universal value in all cultures. Emphasizing only western values in international human rights potentially isolates and disengages cultures that do not subscribe to the same values. The discussion on the evolution of human rights became non-democratic and is dictated solely by the West. The United States's dismissal of the Khashoggi's case may seem logical to the United States while other parts of the world may see it as the U.S. dismissing its promise to civil rights.
The dominance of Western values in determining international human rights is healthy. Ignoring Khashoggi's death, which occurred on Western judgment, does not make the United States dismissive of human rights. Many values currently common in the East, like the difference in gender roles, contradict innate human rights that should be common sense. Following Western values when making decisions like intervention does not contradict human rights but enforces them. The United States still values human rights in light of its dismissal to Khashoggi's death.