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 >

The West is threatened by economic growth in developing countries

If economic power shifts from Western to Eastern countries, the West's financial instability could increase. If the West becomes instable economically, they lose their influence in the global economic power struggle.

Context

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated that developing countries will increase their GDP to rival the West by 2060.

The Argument

The West is prided as being one of the most influential places to live. There’s financial abundance, job variety, and human rights that don’t exist in every part of the globe. Slavery was abolished a long time ago. Even today, people are fighting for the rights of illegal immigrants. However, the West seems to ignore the violations of human rights in other countries. In the past, they abstained from getting involved in major civil wars and domestic terrorism. These acts of violence usually occur in developing countries that don’t have stability. Western countries ignore violent problems in developing countries because they’re afraid of not being in the lead of economic wealth. When developing countries rise, they’ll gain a lot of influential power in the world. Currently, the West holds the most influence. Because of this, the western countries are respected more. If more countries, especially developing countries, start to grow more, they’ll overthrow the western countries’ influence.

Counter arguments

The West isn’t the only place on the globe that holds a lot of economic power. Places like China and the United Arab Emirates are economically stable. They’re even considered rich. The West is just seen as the most influential when it comes to world powers. Western countries try focusing on higher competitors. More influence equals a bigger say in global wealth and economics. A developing country holds no weight during bigger economic powers. The same goes for other areas in life. The louder and qualified voices are heard more. On top of that, being involved in another country’s civil war can negatively affect one’s own. World War 2 was one of the most expensive wars in history.[1] It also risks saving face. The goal is to be neutral unless the country itself is in danger. Causing war on one’s own country for stepping in is dangerous and expensive.

Proponents

Premises

[P1] Western countries ignore violations of human rights in developing countries. [P2] Western countries ignore struggling developing countries because they want to keep them economically unstable.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Western countries don’t want to risk going to war with countries because they interfered with their problems. [Rejecting P2] Western countries focus on countries with good economies because they affect the world more than struggling countries.

References

  1. https://www.encyclopedia.com/defense/energy-government-and-defense-magazines/financing-world-war-ii
This page was last edited on Tuesday, 30 Jun 2020 at 18:06 UTC

Explore related arguments