On Human Rights

Thought bubble.

Human rights takes the backseat when it meets self interest in the eye (say, national self preservation of absorbing countries). Consider the Rohingyans, Syrians, and other refugees. Human rights were not fully and only relatively upheld although measures to alleviate the suffering groups were taken (citizen vs non-citizen).

Aren't we all absolutely humans as declared by default when 'human' rights is laid out and invoked?

Is the concept of human rights then less absolute than what we think it is? If it is so inalienable, why do we see it alienated from its bearers so often--so often when it is pitted against other values, interests, and urgencies?

With these questions, I find it difficult to talk about human rights in absolute terms without sounding hypocritical.

Law, Fairness and Duterte

Morning thought bubbles
*your thoughts are solicited*

Should the law apply equally to all even to this criminal? The UN agrees with death penalty only for egregious crime against mankind (Hitler would be a candidate).
But what is egregious?

My initial thought is that law abiding citizens must benefit first from the law; drug addicts have forfeited their principal privilege.
But what is law abiding?

I think law and fairness are two different things.
Law focuses on institutional limits and freedoms.
Fairness on an actor's decision.
The former (law) feels safer; it is less in danger of being abused. The latter (fairness), can easily slip to tyranny amd arbitrariness.

However, it is fairness, NOT law, that we seek so deeply.

Humans approximate fairness in form of law, and it fails miserably.  Leaders try to be fair, and find themselves turning into tyrants.

Where does this paradox leave us?

https://www.facebook.com/gmanews/videos/10154247952441977/