U.S. promoting Human Rights, is wrong? Options

[Spirited Away]

"Are U.S. Efforts to Promote Human Rights Culturally Biased and Self-Serving?"

That is the question to which the answer would decide our foreign policies as well as why and how other nations perceive us as they do.

So, in your opinions, is there such a thing as universal morality, or do our morals differ so much that, for example: murder, rape, exploitation of child labor, are viewed as 'normal' to some (even hurtful to the economy if child labor is banned)?

Many have said that the US has no right to interfere with how other governments run, but what about in the case of abuse or things that affect humanity and global society?

[innovation]

surely, this thread has more potential than three replies.

it's really tough to say whether or not "universal" morality exists, but i think that it's usually pretty clear when human rights are being violated, except in controversial cases such as abortion, etc. i'll get back to you on this once i think it over a bit more, but it seems to me that generally, people should be provided with rights to assist their nature so that they have the ability to make their own self-affecting choices. does that make any sense? and as for the child exploitation thing, it's banned in many nations already (up to a certain age.. usually 15 i think?) but enforcement is weak. i don't believe that child labor should be completely banned, but limits should be imposed (especially for working conditions). harsh labor often interferes with a child's natural development, as well as his/her ability to make self-affecting choices, such as what career to pursue, etc. i'm sorry; my ideas are very sketchy right now.. they're in the process of development. ><

anyway, i think that intervention is justifiable when a widespread "crime against humanity" has been committed and the existing government is either unable or unwilling to help the situation. the definition of a "crime against humanity" is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but i don't feel like looking it up. anyway, technical things such as what qualifies as "widespread" is usually left to the discretion of the UN.

and should the U.S. only intervene when "it doesn't harm us?" i mean, in the case of Rwanda, the UN estimated that the lives of about 2500 soldiers could have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens. is the U.S. too unwilling to sacrifice?

last random note: i think that nations should be more careful about affecting the neutral culture of another nation when offering aid.

[Spirited Away]

surely, this thread has more potential than three replies.

I think many people either do not care about the matter, or they do not know what to say. But, I'm happy at least one more person cared to answer.

last random note: i think that nations should be more careful about affecting the neutral culture of another nation when offering aid.

Yes.