Universal human rights

In 1948, in the aftermath of World War II’s horrors, the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)—a document asserting that certain rights belong to every human being, everywhere, simply by virtue of being human.

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

This was revolutionary. For most of history, rights were conditional—granted by rulers, earned through citizenship, or limited to particular groups. The UDHR claimed something different: rights are inherent, inalienable, and universal.

But are they? Can rights truly be universal across vastly different cultures, traditions, and values? And if they are universal, why are they so often violated?

What are human rights?

Human rights are moral and legal entitlements that belong to every person by virtue of being human. They’re not granted by governments—they’re recognized and protected by them (ideally).

The three generations of rights

Rights theorists often speak of three “generations” of human rights:

First generation: Civil and political rights

Right to life, liberty, and security
Freedom from torture and slavery
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion
Freedom of expression and assembly
Right to fair trial and due process

These are negative rights—they require governments to refrain from certain actions (don’t torture, don’t censor, don’t arbitrarily imprison).

Second generation: Economic, social, and cultural rights

Right to education
Right to healthcare
Right to work and fair wages
Right to adequate standard of living
Right to participate in cultural life

These are positive rights—they require governments to actively provide certain goods and services.

Third generation: Solidarity rights

Right to development
Right to peace
Right to clean environment
Right to self-determination

These are collective rights—they belong to peoples and communities, not just individuals.

Core characteristics

The UDHR and subsequent human rights frameworks assert that rights are:

Universal: They apply to all people, everywhere, at all times

Inalienable: They cannot be taken away or given up

Indivisible: All rights are equally important; you can’t pick and choose

Interdependent: Rights are interconnected—violating one affects others

The universality debate

The claim that human rights are universal faces serious challenges:

Cultural relativism

The critique: Human rights reflect Western, liberal, individualistic values. Other cultures have different conceptions of dignity, community, and the good life. Imposing “universal” rights is cultural imperialism.

Examples:

Collective vs. individual: Many non-Western cultures prioritize community harmony over individual autonomy. The emphasis on individual rights can seem selfish or destructive.
Religious law: Some Islamic scholars argue that Sharia law provides a complete ethical system that differs from secular human rights frameworks.
Asian values: Some Asian leaders have argued for a distinct set of “Asian values” emphasizing order, duty, and family over individual freedoms.

Response: While cultural differences are real, certain practices (torture, slavery, genocide) are condemned across cultures. Cultures aren’t monolithic—within every society, there are voices calling for rights and dignity. Often, “cultural values” are invoked by those in power to justify oppression.

The problem of enforcement

The challenge: Rights exist on paper but are violated constantly. What makes a right “real” if it can’t be enforced?

Reality check:

Billions lack access to clean water, healthcare, or education
Arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing remain common
Women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people face systematic discrimination
Press freedom is declining globally
Surveillance states erode privacy rights

The gap: There’s an enormous distance between rights in theory and rights in practice. Is a right you can’t exercise really a right?

Response: The gap between ideal and reality doesn’t invalidate the ideal—it shows we have work to do. Rights function as a standard to measure injustice and a tool for demanding change.

Positive vs. negative rights

The tension: Negative rights (freedom from interference) are relatively easy to secure—just don’t torture people, don’t censor speech. Positive rights (access to goods and services) are expensive and resource-dependent.

Questions:

Can poor countries guarantee healthcare and education to all?
Do positive rights create obligations on wealthy nations to assist poor ones?
How do we prioritize when resources are scarce?

The debate: Some argue that only negative rights are truly rights—positive “rights” are aspirations or policy goals. Others counter that freedom means nothing if you’re starving or illiterate. Rights require both freedom and capability.

Foundations: Why do human rights exist?

What grounds human rights? Why do humans have them? Different philosophical traditions offer different answers:

Natural law and religion

Claim: Rights come from God, nature, or the inherent structure of reality. They’re discovered, not invented.

Examples:

Christian tradition: Humans made in God’s image possess inherent dignity
Natural law: Reason reveals certain universal moral truths
Buddhism: All beings possess Buddha-nature

Strength: Provides strong foundation—rights can’t be taken away by governments because they come from a higher source

Weakness: Requires accepting particular religious or metaphysical claims. Pluralistic societies don’t share these foundations.

Human dignity and worth

Claim: All humans have equal inherent worth and dignity. Rights protect and express this dignity.

Question: What grounds dignity? Why do humans have it? The concept often remains undefined or circular.

Strength: Resonates across cultures; most people recognize human dignity even if they can’t define it

Weakness: Vague and potentially question-begging. Also, why only humans? Don’t animals have dignity?

Rational autonomy

Claim: (Kant) Humans are rational agents capable of self-governance and moral reasoning. Rights respect our capacity for autonomy.

Strength: Explains why coercion and manipulation are wrong—they treat people as means rather than ends

Weakness: What about humans who lack full rationality (infants, people with severe cognitive disabilities)? Do they have fewer rights?

Social contract

Claim: (Locke, Rousseau) Rights are agreements we make to escape the “state of nature.” We trade absolute freedom for security and cooperation.

Strength: Doesn’t require metaphysical claims; rights are practical tools for social cooperation

Weakness: What about those not party to the contract? Why should we extend rights to people in other societies?

Pragmatic/instrumental

Claim: Rights work. Societies that protect rights are more stable, prosperous, and peaceful. Rights are useful tools, not metaphysical truths.

Strength: Empirically grounded; can appeal to self-interest

Weakness: If rights are merely useful, they can be discarded when inconvenient. Doesn’t capture the moral urgency of rights violations.

Universal perspective synthesis

From a universal perspective, we might say: Rights recognize the capacity for suffering and flourishing that all humans share.

Every human can experience pain, joy, fear, love, meaning, and loss. Rights protect these capacities and create conditions for flourishing. They’re neither purely discovered (natural law) nor purely invented (social contract)—they’re recognitions of patterns that matter to conscious beings.

Expanding the circle

The history of human rights is a history of expansion—gradually including more people within the circle of moral consideration.

Historical exclusions

The original 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (French Revolution) sounds universal but excluded:

Women (no voting rights until 20th century)
Enslaved people (slavery continued for decades)
Colonized peoples (empire persisted for centuries)
Property-less people (voting restricted to property owners)

Even the 1948 UDHR was written by a world where:

Colonialism was still widespread
Apartheid was legal
Women lacked basic rights in many countries
LGBTQ+ people were criminalized nearly everywhere

Successive inclusions

Rights expanded through struggle:

19th-20th century:

Abolition of slavery
Women’s suffrage
Labor rights and workers’ protections
Decolonization and self-determination

Late 20th-21st century:

Civil rights movements (racial equality)
LGBTQ+ rights
Disability rights
Indigenous rights
Children’s rights

Each expansion was resisted as “going too far” before becoming obvious and inevitable.

Current frontiers

The circle continues expanding:

Refugees and migrants: Do rights follow citizenship, or do they apply to all persons in a territory? How do we balance state sovereignty with human mobility?

Digital rights: Privacy, data ownership, protection from surveillance—rights frameworks designed for the physical world struggle with digital realities.

Algorithmic justice: When AI systems make decisions affecting lives (hiring, loans, criminal justice), what rights do people have to explanation, appeal, and fairness?

Future generations: Do people not yet born have rights? Can they be represented in current decision-making?

Challenges and tensions

Rights vs. responsibilities

Issue: Rights discourse emphasizes entitlements but often neglects responsibilities. Can we have rights without duties?

Communitarian critique: Western rights frameworks are excessively individualistic. They ignore obligations to family, community, and society.

Response: Rights and responsibilities are complementary. My right to speech entails your duty not to censor me. My right to security creates obligations on the state and community. Most rights frameworks implicitly include duties.

Conflicting rights

Problem: Rights can conflict. How do we resolve tensions?

Examples:

Free speech vs. protection from hate speech
Religious freedom vs. LGBTQ+ rights
Right to privacy vs. public safety
Property rights vs. access to resources

No easy answers: These require careful balancing, context-sensitivity, and democratic deliberation. Absolutist approaches (one right always wins) don’t work.

Who holds rights?

Traditional view: Individual humans

Challenges:

Do groups (ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples) have collective rights beyond individual members’ rights?
Do corporations have rights? (In US law, they have some constitutional rights)
Do animals, ecosystems, or AI systems have rights?

Tension: Expanding rights too broadly may dilute their meaning. But arbitrary limitations seem unjustified.

Global governance and enforcement

Rights proclamations mean little without enforcement mechanisms.

International frameworks

United Nations system:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
International Covenants on Civil/Political and Economic/Social/Cultural Rights (1966)
Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965)
Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1979)
Convention on Rights of the Child (1989)
Many others

Regional systems:

European Convention on Human Rights (strongest enforcement)
American Convention on Human Rights
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

The enforcement gap

Problems:

States must voluntarily ratify treaties
Enforcement relies on political will and pressure
Powerful states often ignore international rulings
Economic and military might trump legal obligations
“Sovereignty” shields violations

Limited tools:

International Court of Justice (states only, limited jurisdiction)
International Criminal Court (individuals, selective prosecution)
UN Human Rights Council (naming and shaming, limited impact)
Economic sanctions (harm populations, rarely change behavior)

The need for stronger global governance

Planetary challenges require planetary solutions. The current state-based system is inadequate for:

Protecting stateless persons and refugees
Addressing cross-border violations
Ensuring universal access to global public goods (climate stability, pandemic response)
Regulating global corporations and digital platforms

Global Governance Frameworks: The sister project to Universalize has developed models for strengthening global governance while respecting diversity and subsidiarity. The Moral Operating System framework addresses these tensions directly.

Practicing universal human rights

You can’t single-handedly create a just global system, but you can:

Educate yourself: Learn about rights violations, their causes, and the people fighting for justice. Knowledge precedes action.

Support rights organizations: Donate to or volunteer with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, local advocacy groups. Collective action works.

Use your voice and vote: Pressure governments to uphold international commitments. Vote for leaders who prioritize human rights domestically and globally.

Recognize rights in daily life: Respect others’ dignity, autonomy, and freedoms. Challenge violations you witness. Model what rights-respecting relationships look like.

Expand your circle: Practice seeing “outsiders”—refugees, prisoners, people across borders—as rights-bearers deserving equal concern.

Advocate for systemic change: Rights violations often stem from structural injustice. Support policies addressing root causes—poverty, inequality, militarism, authoritarianism.

The universal perspective

From a universal standpoint, human rights are:

A tool, not the final answer: Rights frameworks are useful but not sufficient. They need to be complemented by ethics of care, virtue, and relationality.

Evolving, not fixed: The content of rights changes as we recognize new forms of harm and new dimensions of flourishing.

Human-focused but not exclusively so: As we expand our circle, we must ask: what about non-human animals, ecosystems, future beings, and potential AI? Rights might be one part of a broader “universal ethics.”

Demanding and difficult: Living up to rights commitments requires sacrifice, redistribution, and fundamental changes to power structures. It’s not comfortable.

Worth fighting for: Despite limitations, rights remain powerful tools for justice. They’ve driven immense progress and continue inspiring movements worldwide.

The question isn’t whether human rights are perfectly universal or adequately enforced. The question is: Will we continue expanding the circle of moral consideration and building systems that honor dignity for all?

Further exploration

Foundational texts:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine
A Theory of Justice by John Rawls

Critical perspectives:

Are Human Rights Universal? by various authors (Human Rights Quarterly)
The Endtimes of Human Rights by Stephen Hopgood
The Idea of Human Rights by Charles Beitz

Related topics:

Rights of nature - Extending rights beyond humans
Global governance - Institutions for planetary ethics
Expanding circles of care - The historical pattern

Practice:

Universal decision filter - Evaluate choices across perspectives
Cosmic consumption - Vote with your wallet