人权是否可以被视为普遍的东西取决于普遍性的概念。普遍性一词总是与人权一词联系在一起。这显然意味着，在任何能够找到人类住区和栖息地的地方，人权也将同时得到行使(Cotesta & D’auria, 2012)。任何人都不能否认这一点。当人们谈论人权的时候，它意味着一些与人类和他们的权利有关的东西，人类占据了世界各地。世界上所有的人得到的任何东西在本质上都是普遍的。因此，由于人类是世界各地的共同生物，权利也应该是所有人的共同权利(Friedman, 2012)。
当一个人谈论文化相对主义时，他指的是人类内部和周围的一切。这将包括与文化相关的信仰或活动，以及追随文化的人(Morsink, 1999)。需要理解的是，如果人权是与文化相对主义有关的真实的东西，那么它就应该是某种保留在特定文化中的东西。这意味着有一些文化团体拥有这种权利，而其他人没有。由于这些都是人权，把它们限制在特定的群体或文化中是没有意义的。因此，我们可以很容易地排除文化相对主义与人权无关这一事实。人权是这样的基本权利，应该给予所有人，不管他们的文化和实践(Reidy & Sellers, 2005)。
由于文化相对主义是在人权的背景下讨论的，因此有必要阐明文化帝国主义、文化新殖民主义以及跨文化活动发生的不同方式(Stern & Straus, n.d.)。如果所有这些都发生了变化，那么全世界确定人权的方式也将发生变化。
Whether Human Rights can be considered as something universal or not depends upon the concept of universality. The word universality has always been associated with the term human rights. It is clearly implied that wherever one can find human settlements and habitats, human rights would also be exerted simultaneously (Cotesta & D’Auria, 2012). This cannot be denied to anyone. When one is talking about the human rights, it means something related to humans and their rights, and human beings occupy the world all over. Anything when given to all the human beings all over the world is universal in nature. Thus, since human beings are the common creatures all over the world, the rights are also supposed to be common for all (Friedman, 2012).
Universality is completely opposite to the concept relativism, and this helps us in pursuing the discussion further to answer the main question (Langwith, 2008). Therefore, to begin with it can be said that if human rights are said to be universal, they in no way can be relative to any culture or to any territory. Further the discussion incorporates brief description of cultural imperialism, cultural neo-colonialism and the reason why human rights theoretically cannot be culturally restricted. Followed by the discussion it proves that in reality because of inhumane practices, human rights are becoming less universal and more relative (McCorquodale, 2003).
Relativism is a concept is opposite to the concept of universality. It is said that Relativism is not the truth itself or points of valid facts itself, but are relative when compared to some other truth or fact. This means that relativism would only stand true when compared to something else. In similar context, cultural relativism has been referred, too (Donnelly, 1984).
When one talks about cultural relativism, one is referring to everything in and around human beings. This would include the beliefs or activities which are in relation with a culture, and the people following it (Morsink, 1999). It needs to be understood that in case human rights was something that was true pertaining to cultural relativism, it would have been something that would have remained within a particular cultural. It means that there are cultural groups which have the rights and the others do not. Since these are human rights, limiting them to particular groups or cultures does not make sense. Thus, one can easily rule out the fact which cultural relativism is something that has nothing to do with human rights. Human rights are such fundamental rights which should be given to all human beings irrespective of their culture and practices (Reidy & Sellers, 2005).
Since cultural relativism has been discussed in context with the human rights, it becomes necessary that one shed light upon cultural imperialism, cultural neo-colonialism and the different ways in which inter-cultural activities are taking place (Stern & Straus, n.d.). And if at all this changes, the ways in which human rights are to be ascertained all over the world.
Cultural imperialism is the cultural aspect of imperialism. Imperialism refers to a condition where the rights are not equal, and more power is given to ‘superior citizens’ and there is unequal treatment. Therefore, cultural imperialism would mean that the culture of a more imposing nation or a more powerful state would be imposed on a society or a state which is not as powerful (Glendon, 2001). When cultural imperialism is discussed keeping in mind the human rights, they would be antagonistic in nature, because human rights refer to a set of rights which are given to all the people in the world, irrespective of culture, status, caste, race or gender. But cultural imperialism believes in giving benefits and rights to the more powerful class of the society or to the more powerful nation, ignoring the smaller section or the less powerful section. It would also mean that the higher or the more powerful states gets to decide upon the rights provided. This is the ultimate defeat of the existence of the concept of human rights, along with defying its definition (Monteiro, n.d.).