Hi Erin,
(a p.s. to Wim)
What you say is of great value to me. I don't think I'm living in a so
different society: even here in Italy and Europe justice has lots of
problems. Maybe a little diverse than there.
I'm proud we have abolished death penalty since a long time. I'm not proud
that justice works diversely if you are rich. Not to speak of the bizarre
concept of justice our new president is carrying on... he has given his
lawyers and economic advisors the job to write laws ... but let me skip this
point: it makes me vomit, and I don't want to waste my Sunday lunch.
Of course, we all are very lucky as we live in a society where after all
human rights are to a certain extent respected. Yet, it does not mean we
can't do better.
> I was wondering if perhaps this was a cultural
> difference where the justice
> system was not being as abused. You do know
> about some of the ridiculous cases
> that come up in America. So when you said human
> rights I was placing it on
> the social level but your post makes me want to think about it some more.
> I just had a couple of questions. I think you probably
> purposely chose human
> rights rather than justice so I was wondering if
> you could expand on what you
> consider is the difference
I try. Not sure if I can tell something relevant. Giuseppe Mazzini, one of
the founding fathers of Italy (well, we also have
ours), a great intellectual of the XIX century, and an early theorist of a
European integration
[for that he got the opposition of all the European kings and emperors and
popes - funny, they were eternally engaged in wars, but when the bad guy
came with an innovative idea, they were all in perfect agreement]
says that Duties are as important as Rights. In an age in which everyone
(beginning from Marx) were yelping about the Rights of peoples, workers,
citizens and so on.... he wrote a book entitled "The Duties of Man". But he
was not a reactionary, exactly the opposite. There is no right that does not
match with a duty. For example, if we claim our right to freedom of speech,
we have to respect the other's words.
In my opinion, in many occasions we are very clever to scream for our rights
and we forget our duties. Of course, society (with laws, policemen, judges)
is there to make us respect them, but it would be much better for us
learning to respect them without coercion. I perfectly know it's an utopia,
but as long as dreaming is not a sin, well, let me dream.
> and what rights humans are entitled to?
If you ask me for a list, well, I can't help a lot. Basically, I'd say we
have the right to our individuality (see also my previous post to Scott).
That right matches with the duty to respect (that does not mean absolutely
blindly "obey to") the values of the society we live within.
Pirsig names some of these rights: "Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly,
of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent", and I'm
perfectly fine with them. Yet, I think this list could not be complete.
For example there is not private property. It would seem an obvious right,
according to our current social model, but I don't know to what extent the
right to private property can be considered a human right or not. Another
very modern issue is to consider credit a right.... anyway, I really don't
know if there are other basic human rights. Anyone here in touch with
Amnesty International?
> Also why
> did you choose human rights rather than rights of living beings?
We were discussing the 3rd-to-4th leap. That is merely human. human rights
are there for that. No less, no more. The rights of living beings are not
about their individuality. For a lion it's enough the right to live and
procreate, freedom of assembly seems not necessary! So the rights of living
beings (something I hold as very -VERY- important, given that we have just
this planet... ) are anyway morally less important than the rights of
societies and individuals.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Marco
p.s.
Wim, just saw your question. "Habeas Corpus" literally in Latin means "That
you have the body", but it doesn't refer to a right to life. It's a "writ
requiring that a prisoner be brought to court to determine legality of
confinement" (Definition from Webster's Dictionary).
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:51 BST