if i remember my john rawls correctly even within his utilitarian framework he admitted to some “basic rights” which existed outside of utility calculations. that is, these were not means, but ends in and of themselves. many of these debates about “hegemonic human rights” (to borrow a phrase) operate on the margins of what cultures perceive universal rights to be, or exactly how important a “basic right” is. for example, i think there is more worldwide agreement that slavery should be banned and stamped out, even if it violates local norms or state sovereignty. there is less consensus when it comes to female suffrage, since of course there are some states which selectively give the right to vote only to males (though since the right to vote is limited in various other ways it might seem less pernicious, especially in light of the existence of non-democratic regimes). even within “western” culture there are differences; freedom of speech from an american perspective is just far more thoroughgoing than even in other anglo-nations, who themselves are more radical than continental europeans.