The value will be morality as all ethical systems seek to prevent wrong or go

towards good. Take for example the value of justice. Justice seeks to do things on
the term of the law or the right code while avoiding chaos (bad) such as breaking
the law. In this it is apparent that all ethical systems seek to achieve good/right and
banish bad/wrong.

The criterion will be respecting cultural relativism.

Gould (professor of philosophy and government) explains to us that morality and

moral societies are only created at the point where the value others as he puts it It
also involves the development of a world created by the activities of these
individuals, a world which embodies the values that they have given it. Thus the
capacity for choice becomes concretely realized in the self- development of
individuals which thus constitutes the meaning and the value We can see that
people and values are only supported when the value others as well as recognize
the legitimacy of opposing cultures.

Raeder- a doctorate holder in political theory tells us that to compel the idea of a
utopian society or a social good for all is to ignore the right of the individual as well
as delegitimize others beliefs that dont fit that criteria. He furthers this by saying
that commitment to shared values is more important compelling equal and similar
beliefs. To destroy an individuals culture and agency would be to push it as a lesser
culture thus undermining the rational agency of that person and being an immoral
act.

Peerenboom (law professor) writes that human rights movement has been accused
of bias, arrogance and imperialism With this he provide the warrant since the
human rights movement Is seen as a universal movement it excludes major cultural
differences. He tells us that super powers like the US and GB influence the
movement the most it comes to include their ideas of rights rather than minority
countries. This ensures that the imperialistic movement of human rights
intervention by the US will ensure the suppression of the host nations culture in
order to accommodate what the US seems fit.

Mutua (law director) continues peerenbooms ideas with the idea that human rights
imply universality. He says this excludes minority views because A) it is the US
inserting their beliefs of rights not the host nations beliefs and B) Western powers

define what it means ensuring the spread of their culture on behalf of human rights
while minority cultures are edged out resulting in an immoral intervention.

Weisman- shares in on the idea that lack of universality of rights and beliefs just
result in the loss of minority cultures that the US would intervene on the behalf of.
He however provides a different warrant. He says that the United States a sovereign
is inherently biased towards spreading its own beliefs. They then us the rights
abuses as an excuse to intervene and impute their own beliefs. This is no more
relevant than in Iraq, we came in to stop rights abuses however we stayed past our
welcome input what we thought of as the ideal system democracy. The locals
inherently rejected this as a suppression of their culture.

Robbins- tells us similar arguments as before such as the united states is

responsible for what human rights are however she see intervention as a tool to
undermine autonomy. By linking other countries to us by our own beliefs such as
democracy we not only get rid of their cultural autonomy but make them dependent
on us as a model nation. This can only be done in the name of human rights as we
see our beliefs as the universal.

We then see that because the United States is responsible for codifying what they
think as human rights it ensures that when they intervene they will use it as a
chance to spread their culture whether consciously or not it will always be a
violation of cultural relativism thus a violation of morality making intervention
unjustifiable.