Aristotle argues that we can compare different moral systems but we can’t say that one is better than another
Aristotle argues that we can compare different moral systems but we can’t say that one is better than another because all moral systems arise out of a specific cultural setting. This makes sense, but nevertheless there are certain moral and cultural practices that really do seem wrong to us. In your view, is there a solution to this problem? If so, what might it be?
Sample Solution
ms to resolve conflicts and prevent human rights violations from taking place (Adams, 2015). Human rights governance is the governance of the world and nations according to the principles of human rights. Human rights are the rights upheld to protect all individuals and shared by all members of the human race regardless of sex, race, nationality or economic background (Ishay, 2004). The definition of human rights is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, the four pillars of which are ‘dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood’ (Ishay, 2004). The promotion and application of human rights affects both the implementation of globalisation and social actions in favour for and against human rights principles (Howard-Hassman, 2010). Thus, the UN has the responsibility to act in favour of maintaining human rights principles but may struggle to do so. Once the arguments for and against the UN primarily reflecting the interests of the most powerful states in the context of human rights governance have been presented, conclusions will be presented on this topic. First, it is important to understand the role of the UN in the global system. The UN is widely considered to be a source of hope for the world’s environmental, developmental and humanitarian communities (Clements, 2008). The UN is a multilateral organisation that also promotes the right to nation self-interest. In this sense, the UN is a trade union that represents the interests of 192 separate parties (Clements, 2008). The powers and membership of the UN were created with these points in mind. For example, the power of veto was put in place as a decision-making device as a classic balance of power mechanism. The theory behind this is that the veto would help to guard against any single state or combination of states imposing their own interests under the guise of community norms (Cronin and Hurd, 2008). Also, the diversity of the permanent 5 in terms of interests and worldview was intended, in theory, to ensure that the UN Security Council decision reflect a high degree of broad consensus (Cronin and Hurd, 2008). As well as this, the 10 rotating members of the UN Security Council prevent a power cabal since any binding decision requires a >
GET ANSWER