User:Gregs435

This is the start of User: Gregs435...

Gregs435 can be written to by using the following mailing address: Greg Severin, POB 696, Lansing, Illinois... Any help getting my story out would be appreciated... what follows is one of my research papers on Universal Human Rights:

Universal Human Rights Greg Severin Governors State University Abstract The late prominent theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg developed the Theory of Moral Development. Part of his theory defined the highest level of moral development that he called: Stage Six, Post Conventional Moral Reasoning. At this level of moral reasoning, an individual will defy his or her cultural laws to uphold Universal Human Rights or Universal Ethical Principles. The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of Universal Human Rights and equality for all. This paper considers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn up by the charter of the United Nations in 1948. The purpose of this U.N. decree was to give legal assurance to the concept of dignity and worth for every person on earth. This document was to be the world’s rule of law assuring equal and inalienable rights for all members of the human family, regardless of one’s race, sex, language, or religion. This paper raises the question of how this concept of moral conformity relates to the current trend in the helping professions to embrace multicultural diversity. There exists a point, at which, a person’s cultural activities or traditions violate Universal Human Rights (example: oppression of women). This writing examines historical and current examples of what may be considered Universal Human Rights violations by different cultures of the world. The conclusion of this paper will discuss what implications the concept of Universal Human Rights or Universal Ethical Principles could have for the future of the helping professions.

Universal Human Rights The crimes against humanity that took place during World War Two inspired the leadership of the human race to create a new world order by forming the United Nations. This new global rule of law was to facilitate a better and less oppressive world. The formation of the United Nations was to replace goverment as usual, where human life is determined by localized brute force or cohersion. Brute force can be found in one’s culture, specifically, in one’s: individual family, local police force and national military presence. World leadership was inspired to create a more just and civilized global village. This global village was to be based on values that were born out of principled, moral thinking found in important concepts, such as: equality, dignity, and respect for all people. In 1948, aspiring to develop this new world order, the U.N. issued a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to apply moral thought in such a way as to govern the earth’s population on a global scale. In contrast to this decree of Universal of Human Rights, postmodernistic thinking has led the helping professions to embrace multicultural sensitivity (Hansen, 2010). The strength of embracing multicultural sensitivity is that, the helping profession currently supports the idea there are multiple truths/realities found in each culture instead of one absolute, universal truth or reality. However, the weakness in accepting multiple truths/realities found in any one culture, is that, there exists a point at which, a person’s belief/truth/reality can violate Universal Human Rights (example: oppression of women). The purpose of this paper is to explore this dilemma. Universal Human Rights grant humanity title that is regulatory in nature, to expect a specific rule of law that assures equality for all. Likewise, Universal Ethical principles address human standards, important values, and worthy ideals in order to develop a moral code to live and govern the world’s societies. Therefore, it can be stated that the concept of Universal Ethical principles is interchangeable and similar to the concept of Universal Human Rights. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was drawn up by world leaders in the charter of the United Nations was the world’s response to the human atrocities that occurred under Hitler’s reign in Germany during WWII. It was simply an application of Universal Ethical Principles presented in document form recognized by worldwide governing bodies as an accepted rule of law. The purpose of this U.N. decree was to give legal assurance to the concept of dignity and worth for every person on earth. In other words, the Declaration of Universal Human Rights simply applied worthy philosophical ideas into a global rule of law involving ethical values or moral principles for the people of the world to live by. This document was to assure equal and inalienable rights for all members of the human family, regardless of one’s race, sex, language or religion (Espiell, 1998). Over the years, this document has lost its power or backing by the world community that has shifted, once again, back to the world’s individualistic view towards cultural sensitivity at the expense of the concept of Universal Human Rights. Today, in context of professional marriage and family counseling, the spirit of what was to be the new world order of equality for all members of the human family conflicts with today’s closely held concept of multicultural sensitivity. The late prominent theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg developed the Theory of Moral Development. Part of his theory defined the highest level of moral development that he called: Stage Six, Post Conventional Moral Reasoning. Stage 6 uses abstract, universal ethical principles to make decisions that respects all people without regard to personal characteristics, such as, their ethnicity, religion, age, or gender. At this level of moral reasoning, an individual will defy his or her cultural laws to uphold Universal Human Rights or Universal Ethical Principles (Al-Rumaidhi, 2008). As a random example of how this concept could have affected history, consider the Mayan Indian culture (500 BC to 1200 AD). The Mayan Indians, who resided in what now is Mexico and Central America, had a cultural practice of a human life sacrifice to appease their Mayan god (Fuson, 1969). The individual Mayans that lost their life due to this culturally accepted ritual of human sacrifice would certainly have been in favor of any Mayan that would have defied the cultural ways and come to the rescue of those being sacrificed, in order to uphold a concept similar to the modern day concept of Universal Human Rights or Universal Ethical Principles. Another example would be today’s Chinese culture, where now the Chinese government only allows one child to be raised by each Chinese couple, baby girls are abandoned at birth in order for the couple to conceive a baby boy at a later date, in order to preserve the family’s lineage. The question is, does embracing multicultural thinking in these situations the ethical thing to do? Perhaps there are limits to embracing multicultural differences. In my opinion, neither the ethics codes in any of the helping professions, nor any of the helping profession’s state laws address the concept of Universal Human Rights or Universal Ethical Principles in a meaningful and significant way. Some social science researchers believe there is a Universal Human Right to life and not to be tortured. However, how about the human right to experience pain willingly? Furthermore, is it a Universal Human Right to allow one’s culture to inflict a certain degree of pain on an individual in that culture with or without his or her consent (Cruft, 2005)? For example, African cultures may have initiation ceremonies that involve cutting of children’s body parts that cause the child pain and intentional scarring (Parekh, 2000). The question is: are Universal Human Rights being violated if this tradition is accepted in the spirit of multiculturalism as far as the helping profession is concerned? How about pain inflicted on an individual by a cultural tradition that has irreversible consequences for that person? For example, some cultures hold a tradition of female genital mutilation. This cultural practice results in “... irreversible physical harm, endangers the individual’s life, and removes an important source of pleasure...” for that individual (Parekh 2000: 276; see also Dorkenoo 1995: 29–58). The point is how far do we take the idea of multicultural sensitivity? More importantly, where do we, in the helping profession, draw the line that represents where Universal Human Rights trump multicultural sensitivity? In many cultures, disobedience to one’s husband justifies wife beating and is a culturally acceptable as punishment; but where does multicultural sensitivity end and Universal Human Rights begin in this circumstance? If we accept the idea of spousal punishment in the spirit of being multiculturally sensitive, then at what point does punishment turn into abuse? Some of those in the helping profession take the position that the postmodernistic thinking that led the helping profession to embrace multicultural differences and multicultural diversity simply is an immoral position to take in some cases (Webb, 2009). Webb suggests that the helping profession must rethink its current multicultural diversity and sensitivity stance and bring back concepts of Universal Human Rights and equality for all. Benn Michaels (2006), in The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality takes the position that a degree of discrimination, whether it is against women, race or religion, must become acceptable to people in the helping professions if we are to accept some multicultural practices or multiculturalistic thinking. He states that one can be over zealous in the attempt to support cultural diversity. Some social science researchers believe there are limits to the trend towards cultural sensitivity (Espiell, 1998). Overemphasizing cultural sensitivity in the helping professions becomes problematic, in the sense that, marriage and family abuse can flourish under the auspices of respect for one’s cultural ways. For example, in many cultures, still today, women are to be “barefoot and pregnant” until they can no longer reproduce. As this culturally valued thinking goes, in some cultures education designed for a woman to open doors to a career is all but forbidden and definitely looked down upon. In these households, still today, there is no question that a woman’s place is in the home and any talk to the contrary is considered blasphemy in the family tradition and possibly to God. As professional family counselors, should we ignore the consequences of that close-minded cultural thinking for the sake of being multiculturally sensitive? Should further education to prepare an aspiring young woman for a meaningful career be a Universal Human Right? Is it culturally insensitive to confront parents (of an aspiring young lady at the age of 16 or 17) that insist that they will influence their daughter in such a way, as to discourage her from seeking further education? Those of us training to be professional counselors know full well that in the traditional role of the husband (as the breadwinner) in some cases, the husband will not be able to provide financially for his family (due to divorce, sickness, injury or lack of education himself). Therefore, following the cultural tradition of an uneducated woman in America today is detrimental to the well being of the whole household? Does this type of cultural thinking qualify as intergenerational oppression of women or must we remain hands off and respect multicultural diversity as professionals? What follows are three worldviews of how the ideal of multicultural respect and sensitivity relate to the ideal of Universal human rights decreed by the U. N. in 1948. The decree was to give legal assurance to the concept of dignity and worth for every person on earth as well as equal and inalienable rights for all members of the human family: Firstly, dominant cultures historically have controlled the lives of those in weaker subcultures. In reaction to human diversity, a dominant culture might forbid a subculture’s activities or traditions. In addition, ethnocentric thinking found in many dominant cultures has resulted in discrimination, racism, war, slavery, and even genocide. For example, social injustices ranging from American slavery to the Nazi Germany death camps where justified by visions of racial superiority. In my opinion, this type of ethnocentric thinking runs hand in hand with Global Darwinism. Global Darwinism is defined as survival of the fittest culture (fittest, as in dominant or most aggressive). In other words, Global Darwinism is a form of Social Darwinism (envision cultural evolution on a global level). Secondly, in contrast, an ideal supporting multicultural sensitivity is a concept called Cultural relativism is the belief that governments should accommodate any cultural differences arising among its citizens (Booth, 1999). Cultural relativism suggests that the actions of people within each culture should be evaluated according to the rules of a subculture, and not the rules of the dominant culture. In support of this idea, post-modern thinking, opposes the concept of regionalized governments. The thinking goes that regional governments exist to enforce the rule of law, written by members of the dominant culture, for the purpose of controlling all those in subcultures in this same region. Thus, if human equality is the goal, the regional government itself becomes the problem that blocks the goal of human equality for all people of the land (Booth, 1999). The third and last worldview that we will discuss is that, Universal Human Rights cannot be dictated to those that have different cultural values, but rather an educational process must introduce these, higher order, hope of equal and inalienable rights and the concept of dignity and worth for every person in the human family (Stivachtis, 2007). This educational approach will prevent political and social backlash in forcing this concept by rule of law. The problem with this approach, is that, human suffering will exist until each and every human being on earth accepts and adopts this new way of thinking introduced to his or her culture. In conclusion, Universal Ethical Principles and Cultural Traditions clash at the point where cultural tradition violates the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Establishing a new world order in 1948, this U. N. decree was to assure every person on earth: dignity, worth, and equality. Therefore, if multicultural sensitivity trumps Universal Ethical Principles, then, as therapists, we must take a hands off approach when clients disclose a cultural practice that violates Universal Human Rights. I believe there is no place on earth where Universal Human Rights violations to be deemed acceptable. In other words, if we counsel our clients and their families, as if, sensitivity to their cultural ways are paramount, then, Universal Human Rights violations will continue to occur. As a helping professional, are we to accept parents violating the dignity and worth of their children? Are we to accept a dominant spouse violating equal and inalienable rights of the submissive spouse in order to preserve a family tradition or cultural value in the name of multicultural sensitivity? The helping profession would do well to rethink being multiculturally sensitive to the point of allowing known Universal Human Rights violations to occur. Didn’t we enter the helping profession in order to improve other’s lives though our professional counsel? A helping professional promoting multiculturalism would do well to remember the ideals set forth in the 1948 U.N. decree assuring equal and inalienable rights for all members of the human family. Those advocating multiculturalism would also do well to remember the purpose of this U.N. decree, which was designed to give legal assurance to the concept of equality, dignity and worth for every person on earth. Finally, it is reasonable to assume that a therapist that has developed the highest level of ethical or moral reasoning will defy his or her cultural laws in order to uphold the concept of Universal Human Rights, of which, is also referred to as Universal Ethical Principles.

References

Al-Rumaidhi, K. S. (2008). Moral reasoning among Kuwaiti adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36(1), 115-121. Benn Michaels W (2006). The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality. New York, Metropolitan Books. Booth, K. (1999). "Three Tyrannies." Human Rights in Global Politics, edited by T. Dunne and N.J. Wheeler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruft, R. (2005). Human rights, individualism and cultural diversity. Critical Review of International Social & Political Philosophy, 8(3), 265-287. doi:10.1080/13698230500187151 Dorkenoo, E. (1995) Cutting the Rose. Female Genital Mutilation: The Practice and its Prevention. London: Minority Rights Publications. Espiell, H. (1998). Universality of human rights and cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal, 50(158), 526-534. Fuson, R. H. (1969). The orientation of Mayan ceremonial centers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 59(3), 494-511. Hansen, J. T. (2010). Consequences of the postmodernist vision: diversity as the guiding value for the counseling profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(1), 101-107. Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Stivachtis, Y. A. (2007). The use and abuse of culture: implications for international order in a multicultural world. Journal of Political & Military Sociology, 35(2), 259-279. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Webb, S. A. (2009). Against difference and diversity in social work: the case of human rights. International Journal of Social Welfare, 18(3), 307-316. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00659.x