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

Human rights are expressive of Western norms

Question: Does the West still value human rights in light of its dismissal of Khashoggi's death?
Position‹2 of 5›: Yes, despite that Western countries and non-Western countries perceive human rights differently
Argument1 of 2›: Human rights are expressive of Western norms

Human rights are meant to protect individual dignity, but every culture has a different definition of this principle. We often perceive the Western definition of human rights as universal, ignoring cultural differences. This idea could destroy cultural values in an effort to "westernize" belief systems.

The argument

The concept of human rights came from Judeo-Christian (which has contained as part of Western culture) and The Enlightenment. These rights reflect Western interests which cannot be practised smoothly by other nations that don’t reproduce the conditions and values of Western societies. For example, the premise of Asian values argues that "the civil, political, social, and cultural norms advanced by the international human rights legal framework are Western, rather than universal. " For such reason, human rights are often imposed on non-Western countries by Western governments. We are living in a world of plurality of cultures, where western is centred on the individual whereas most African and Asian value the community. Considering disparities in the notions of human rights carried across by different countries, it is impossible for the West to implement such a non-universality concept in other nations.

Context

It is asserted that human rights are expressive of Western values and norms, thus could be contradictory to other cultures.

Premises

[P1]Human rights originate in Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment thought, making them expressive of Western norms and interests. [P2] Non-Western societies, valuing community over the individual, see these norms as Western rather than universal — the Asian values critique. [P3] These genuine cultural disparities mean the West and non-West inevitably perceive human rights differently. [C] Therefore, the West does still value human rights, even though, as expressions of Western norms, they are perceived differently by non-Western countries.

Counter-arguments

1.Human rights are defined to have universal validity, regardless of its originality. 2. The simplified view that human rights are western overlooks the fact that a majority of the countries involved in the formation of UDHR were non-western countries like India and China, suggesting that "All cultures—Western or otherwise—beget demands for the recognition of human rights from oppressed populations that later give rise to human rights reforms."

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Where an idea originated says nothing about whether it is valid or applicable elsewhere. The historical claim is also narrower than stated: prohibitions on arbitrary killing, on cruelty and on unfair trial appear across many traditions, and as the counter notes, the drafting of the Universal Declaration involved delegates from China, India, Lebanon, Chile and other non-Western states. [Rejecting P2] The "Asian values" thesis is presented as a description of societies but was advanced largely by particular governments, and it was contested within those same societies by opposition politicians, courts, journalists and dissidents. Treating a state's official position as its culture's view assumes the internal agreement that is precisely in question. [Rejecting P3] The premise proves too much for the position it is meant to support. If human rights are genuinely non-universal and cannot be implemented in other societies, that is an argument that Western advocacy is misconceived rather than evidence that the West still values human rights. The question at issue is a Western response to one particular killing, and none of the premises address it.