The argument for subjecting students to virginity tests is based on the desire to maintain a particular normative behavior. In consideration of this idea it seems evident that pursuing legislation that would focus on such ends would indeed be a profound violation of personal liberties. For this reason, if a similar proposal had been made in the Singapore Parliament today, I would not have supported this proposal. The proposal is a violation of basic human rights. The individual rights that should be ensured for people in society dictate that this would not be the best course of action to ensure a balance between human rights and cultural tradition.
The individual rights of an individual are primarily dependent upon the perceived moral obligations or responsibilities that the states they are a part of have constructed. The moral obligations that are presupposed by these groups are, therefore, expressed through the ideologies of the communities that make up that state. “Moral rules, including human rights, function within a moral community” (Donnelly, 2012, p. 403). In developing a moral community is important to determine the basic level of control that the state should play in the personal lives of individuals. Generally, this level is determined by the subjective ideals of the culture that is creating the laws, however, there are some basic principles that should be considered the rights of all.
It is evident that there are various things that might be considered violations of rights but, at the same time, should be left to the culture itself to decide in favor of the autonomy of the state over the international community. It is therefore important to understand that there are “certain choices from such moral communities demand respect from outsiders” (Donnelly, 2012, p. 403). However, it is also evident that extending this autonomy to all decisions could potentially result of specific human rights violations. The application of these legal questions therefore demonstrates a profound consideration that must be given for the notions of individual rights and the need to balance them with cultural traditions.
The disproportions that would arise if only these culturally traditions were accounted for, however, would present major implications for the establishment of human rights. This demonstrates that a major consideration that should be given in regards to the liberties that are extended to people within a society. In this regard it seems evident that “if all rights rested solely on culturally determined social rules then there could be no human rights” (Donnelly, 2012, p. 404). This presents the need to look beyond the desires of those who perceive a specific behavior to be negative. The challenge is to come to a conclusion regarding the application of these principles to the development of personal rights and the responsibility that society has in safeguarding them for the individual.
It is evident that there is, in the modern world, a strong international march towards the establishment of what could be considered a universal human right. This seems to indicate that there should be a general consideration for the basic rights of all people within society. There is therefore a need to establish the basis upon which the responsibility of society to provide human rights should be considered. “Today there is near universal international agreement that certain things simply cannot legitimately be done to human beings” (Donnelly, 2012, p. 404). In this regard it seems that it is necessary to develop a consideration of how far society is willing to go in order to preserve these rights. The rights of the individual under international law have, therefore, profoundly changed in the modern world. This presents the need to balance the traditional aspects of cultural norms with modern ethical and moral values.
The idea of a norm demonstrates a major challenge in considering the establishment of this legislation. The cultural desires of those who presented it demonstrate a strong conviction towards the need to maintain the purity of their population. They therefore define a specific behavior that they believe should be acted upon. “Norms typically are defined as prescriptions of behaviors and attitudes that are considered acceptable or desirable in a given social unit” (Brauer & Checkroun, 2005, p. 2). For this reason it is important to define the norms and behaviors that are considered most important to the society. The establishment of these rules and regulations present the realities of their cultural awareness.
The need to understand normative behavior in this context is predicated on the establishment of authority by a ruling group over those that they consider to be engaging in deviant behavior. Control therefore would need to be established towards an individual that “holds a counter normative attitude or who engages in a counter normative behavior” (Brauer & Checkroun, 2005, p. 2). In this sense, participation in sexual activity before a specific age would be considered a counter-normative behavior that is undoubtedly culturally relevant. However, engaging in the prescribed tests would also be a major violation of the personal rights and liberties of those that they are acting upon. It is therefore important to consider the balance between cultural norms and personal rights in this situation.
It is also important to consider the dynamic nature of normative behavior and how these behaviors are viewed by society. The very foundations of a culture therefore present evidence of the relationship between these ideas. “What attitudes and behaviors are considered counternormative (or deviant) depends on the current norms and traditions of the social unit under consideration” (Brauer & Checkroun, 2005, p. 2). The expression of normative attitudes and beliefs as well as their complexity and susceptibility to change present major obstacles to the foundations of human rights. The establishment of this legislation therefore presents a major ethical dilemma that should be considered.
In this sense, while it is important to consider the basic foundations of cultural tradition and relevance, it is equally important to develop strong values that can be promoted even in the scope of awareness of these ideas. The major challenge is therefore presenting the basis upon which these rights can be considered. This is primarily due to “the conceptual universality implied by the very idea of human rights” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 282). In understanding this idea, it is evident that there are specific human rights that should be granted despite the culture or traditional context of those in question. In this regard, the basis of tradition can be maintained within these societies despite the challenges that these needs have to the international human rights community.
This demonstrates a major issue in regards to the establishment of rights for those in Singapore. While it seems to be the case that these individuals should be granted the rights of privacy that would impede the government from acting in this way, this is not necessarily guaranteed. In many cases it is evident that “sovereignty still ultimately trumps human rights” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 289). This presents a major obstacle to the establishment of basic values in relation to the consideration of personal rights and liberties. These values would ultimately allow the establishment of legal precedent for consideration of the privacy of these individuals above the cultural desires of society. Because the rights of personal privacy will not always necessarily be able to be assured by the international community, the need to provide these rights should be considered in the legislation presented by Singapore.
This should be done not only due to the ethical and moral implications of the decision but also because it would allow the nation to function in the full breadth of the international community. It is evident that “protecting internationally recognized human rights is increasingly seen as a precondition of full political legitimacy” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 289). For this reason, the establishment of this basic right to privacy should be considered in order to develop a society that is based in the realities of the modern world and the needs of people to have the right of personal freedom.
This demonstrates an important challenge to the establishment of legislation that would encroach on the basic rights of these individuals. In understanding these ideas, legislation can be presented that draws on a “plausible conception of personal autonomy and individual human rights” (Donnelly, 2007, p. 304). It is therefore important to account for these basic human rights in drafting proposals that might potentially effect the personal liberties of those in a society. As the proposed legislation does not prove to adapt to these considerations, the proposal would not be upheld. I would instead call for revisions that take into account the personal autonomy of the individual.
It is evident that the basic realities of individual freedoms dictate the need to develop legislation that is in line with the principles of modern humanitarian justice. However, in developing these principles it is important to consider the basic needs of society and the cultural awareness of their national autonomy. In this sense, the importance of establishing a cohesive framework for the consideration of the legislation rests in the relationship between social responsibility and cultural awareness. The underlying balance between these ideas demonstrates the fundamental nature of human rights and their capacity to challenge a society to reconsider the policies that it enacts. For this reason, I would not support this proposal. The underlying nature of its ideals demonstrates that there is a fundamental issue in regards to the capacity of the legislation to account for the personal rights and dignities of the individual and their privacy.
References
Brauer, M. & Checkroun, P. (2005). The Relationship Between Perceived Violation of Social Norms and Social Control: Situational Factors Influencing the Reaction to Deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, pp. 1-22.
Donnelly, J. (2007). The Relative Universality of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 29, Number 2, pp. 281-306.
Donnelly, J. (2012). Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly. Volume 30, Number 40. 400-419.
