Universality

Universality of common human values embedded in declarations and international treaties supposed to be evident in the international human rights legal system but it does not mean that there were no intellectual discrepancies behind those instruments. Universality of human rights has its roots more than anything on theories of Jhon locke's natural law and Immanuel kant's rational ethics . But one of the earliest philosophers of opposition side against unity of human nature and universal morality at the embryonic stage was Nietzsche . Bringing forth the theory of will to power by adopting a psychological genealogy method Nietzsche distinguished between two moralities: Masters Morality and Slaves Morality . He attributed human rights as slave morality. Slaves revolted with the spirit of resentment and womanish deception against masters then introduced their own qualities as standard and universal . The Rise of Christianity and the Great French Revolution are amongst two biggest examples of such slave revolt in morality. With such a presupposition, trying by any effort to reconcile human rights morals with Nietzschean views seems to be unachievable. While reviewing past philosophical challenges, this article tries to analyze necessity of co-existence both international human rights legal system and Nietzschean world from a new perspective.

Through a decolonial approach, this study questions the concept of postethnicity, proposed by David Hollinger, arguing that Hollinger’s vision of a rooted cosmopolitanism – a globally connected society built on shared values – is based upon narrow ‘universal’ values which solely align with Western standards. Decolonial critics like Walter D. Mignolo, in return, advocate for a ‘pluriversal’ world where multiple perspectives and voices coexist without being subsumed under a dominant Western narrative. The study uses two novels, Kazuo Ishiguro’s Klara and the Sun and Arundhati Roy’s The Ministry of Utmost Happiness, to illustrate this debate. It argues that Ishiguro’s novel, while exploring universal themes, is ultimately rooted in a Western ethnocentric perspective, reflecting a zero-point view where Western paradigms are presented as global patterns. On the other hand, Roy’s novel is situated in India, addressing local issues and challenging Western standards. The study concludes that Ishiguro’s approach at best leads to rewesternization – a reassertion of Western perspectives even while attempting to move beyond them, while Roy’s by integrating indigenous traditions, individual and local singularities, and global issues, contributes to the decolonization of Western paradigms advocating a pluriversal world where multiple voices are valued.