Whatever the universal perspective one adopts, it is important to recognise that some form of universalism is politically and ethically necessary.

From a political perspective, it is important to uphold certain universal principles so that, for example, you can condemn both Islamist forms of violence and injustice as well as forms of violence and injustice from other groups - some superpowers, for example, or the English Defence League, as other examples.

However, within the limits of the human, it is important to recognise our common humanity. I think that a perspective based on common human needs has the most chance of being accepted and this does not depend on any particular metaphysical outlook.

Autonomy is the capacity to act on principles that are one's own and one will exercise this capacity by means of a process of rational reflection on these principles. Autonomy is thought to be necessary for attributing political responsibility.

If one really believes that the metaphysic one adopts has much to commend it, then one should obviously try to persuade others of its truth or acceptability!

I believe that a concept that may have some flaws is nonetheless important as a tool to critique abuses on all sides of the political spectrum. In the end, I think that a more useful 'universal' concept than that of a 'right', though, is a 'need'.

If someone says that they have to 'tolerate' cultural differences and cultural groupings different from themselves then that may make it difficult, at the same time, to condemn unjust practices within those cultures.