Human rights norms were formed by the West

The argument

Modern international human rights originated from the West and evolved with the changes in Western cultures. The United States' dismissal of Khashoggi's case resembles the restriction of human rights to only the Western definition. Western governments' decisions on when to intervene are selective based on their judgment of which events require intervention. Due to the selectivity in intervention and restriction to Western interpretations of human rights, the United States does not exactly value human rights in light of its dismissal to Khashoggi's death. Modern international human rights exclude non-Western cultures like Eastern societies and indigenous groups, as these cultures do not participate in the discussion on human rights. For example, modern human rights emphasize individuality. Individuality is not a universal value in all cultures. Emphasizing only western values in international human rights potentially isolates and disengages cultures that do not subscribe to the same values. The discussion on the evolution of human rights became non-democratic and is dictated solely by the West. The United States's dismissal of the Khashoggi's case may seem logical to the United States while other parts of the world may see it as the U.S. dismissing its promise to civil rights.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The dominance of Western values in determining international human rights is healthy. Ignoring Khashoggi's death, which occurred on Western judgment, does not make the United States dismissive of human rights. Many values currently common in the East, like the difference in gender roles, contradict innate human rights that should be common sense. Following Western values when making decisions like intervention does not contradict human rights but enforces them. The United States still values human rights in light of its dismissal to Khashoggi's death.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The drafting history does not support the premise. The Universal Declaration was written by a committee that included P. C. Chang of China, Charles Malik of Lebanon and Hansa Mehta of India, whose interventions shaped the text — Mehta's on the language of equality between men and women — and the drafters consulted philosophers across several traditions. The document was also adopted with no state voting against it. [Rejecting P2] Even granting a Western origin, the inference is a genetic fallacy: where an idea came from does not determine whether it is valid or whether others can hold it. Non-Western states have since ratified the covenants, invoke them against each other, and have generated their own regional instruments — which is difficult to explain if the framework excluded them by construction. [Rejecting P3] The two halves of the argument do not connect. Selective intervention is explained far more directly by arms sales, energy supply and alliance politics than by any cultural feature of the norms, and a government that ignored the killing of a journalist while invoking rights elsewhere is applying a standard inconsistently rather than applying a culturally narrow one. [Rejecting C] The conclusion is also the least contested position in this debate — that Western governments are selective is close to common ground — so the cultural-origins argument is not what supports it. (The counter on record is written in an evaluative rather than descriptive voice and asserts that Western dominance of these norms is healthy, which is a candidate for replacement under the style guide.)