argument top image

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

Countries set different goals for human rights

For non-developed nations, human rights would slow down the pace of rapid economic development.
< (1 of 2) Next argument >

The Argument

Human rights can only survive sufficiently in developed countries with abundant wealth, evenly distributed resources and highly functional political system. Non-Western nations, comparatively less developed and modernized, are in a less powerful or even vulnerable positions to promote human rights. The priority of many developing countries is economic developments, rather than political liberties. "According to a study by the Centre for Children’s Movement for Civic Awareness in India, most Indian youths demonstrated 'authoritarian leanings' and were skeptical about the advantages of democracy." Thus, they do not put as much focus on addressing human rights as on economic gains. Furthermore, human rights are a barrier to rapid development. For example, an ongoing government-funded infrastructure project in a democratic country, affected residents and interest groups protesting for their rights and the free media critizing the negative impacts ect, gets dragged over a few years to complete. For what is mentioned above, the West encounters failures and attacks when trying to promote and rectify human rights systems in the developing.

Counter arguments

Some coercive practices, such as inhumane torture and genocide towards critics and dissidents of the government and leading party, should be condemned whatsoever regardless of one's cultural and social practises because no rights would ever exist under such condition.


Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Friday, 17 Apr 2020 at 09:20 UTC

Explore related arguments