argument top image

Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death? Show more Show less
Back to question

The West used to be the loudest voice advocating for human rights. But Western governments' evasive stances on the horrifying death of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi government dissident, suggest this is no longer the case. In the light of huge economic links and political turbulence, are human rights still valued in western civilization?

Not exactly, Western governments' positions on honouring human rights are selective Show more Show less

The West would not honour human rights consistently if facing the risk of upsetting economic allies.
< (4 of 5) Next position >

Human rights norms were formed by the West

Western nations have imposed liberal, democratic norms on other countries since their rise after World War II. These norms change as Western ideals change and other nations are expected to abide by them or face consequences.

The Argument

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.[1] 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.[2]

Counter arguments

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.[2]



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Thursday, 17 Sep 2020 at 04:30 UTC

Explore related arguments