Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

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

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?

Hard to say, because promoting human rights globally is complicated Show more Show less

There lies an array of predicaments.
< Previous (3 of 5 Positions) Next >

The West can't interfere in others' domestic affairs

There is the fine line between human rights cooperation and infringe on autonomy.
< Previous (3 of 3 Arguments) Next >

Context

The Argument

In most cases, Non-western countries perceive international human rights treaties imposed by the West as cultural colonization and a stepping on their domestic affairs, repelled by such theory and practice of human rights exhibited as an act of superiority, which alike any other colonization the western countries undertook throughout the history. Non-western countries would strike back against the West based on the point that, the West itself is acquainted with social injustices, far from being in the state of human rights violations-free. For such reason, the West must act with cautions dealing with the boundary between promoting human rights internationally and intervene on internal political issues of others.

Counter arguments

Framing

Premises

Rejecting the premises

Proponents

Further Reading

References

    Explore related arguments

    This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:58 UTC