The Case of Troy Davis

[kandrathe]

This position becomes fatal at the moment when a relative/friend of yours, or in general terms a member of your society, is captured there for crime. You'll demand justice in your terms, they'll do justice in theirs. What then? In fact I think societies have to commingle. It is surely a slow and painful process, but it is inevitable.

It is no different than it ever has been. Even here in North America you will experience a different sort of (in)justice when you pass south of the Mexican border, in just the simple difference of a basis on Napoleonic law. "When in Rome..." as the saying goes, you need to heed Rome's laws. Why would I expect the juris prudence of my nation when I violate the law in another country? I would ask for intercession by my countries ambassadors, but if I'm guilty it would be considered just for me to pay my penance. Correct?

Establishing the ideas of basic human rights worldwide, so they're as common as the seven days week, is one step. Denying them even in your own country is stasis.

You can set your own standards on what "Human Rights" entail, but again, without the consent of the governed you would be enforcing it through violence or coercion. Perhaps the same applies by trying to force a nation to become democratic at gun point.

Pete mentioned that the idea of 'rights' is always made up by some men regarding power.

If might makes right, then as Hobbes wrote, life is the state of perpetual war with each of us against the other. If on the other hand we establish it to be a fundamental "inherent" right that each of us is entitled to defend our lives, our liberty (free from slavery) and our property, then we might negotiate together a free society. In Leviathan, Hobbes only argued for the right to life.

The idea of human rights should have evolved in succession of Enlightenment. Especially because the ancient greeks also had only their oligarchical little village in mind, not the 'Barbarians' far away. And not, for that matter, women, the poor, the mental ill, the slaves. So citing them as source without the latter re-thinking of Enlightenment is citing another archaic society's thinking. And Enlightenment itself is pretty old by now, given the progress made in natural sciences we should indeed all be bleeding heart liberals by now, if human society would have evolved with same velocity.

I think the sciences offer us little in advice for how to structure a free society, whereas philosophy at least frames the discussion. As backward as the Greeks in Plato's Republic might have been, they offer a better logic than the fang and claw of barbarian society. Also, I hope I don't burst your bubble here, but the 20th century has been the most brutal in all history. Modern enlightenment? My left buttock.