What is Right?

Does justice have a universal standard? Can justice even be defined universally, or does true justice actually depend on the context of accepted societal and cultural norms? In a society dominated by religion, can it be universally just to administer punishment according to religion values even if the guilty party is not a practitioner of that particular religion? Even if justice is truly universal, who gets to decide what is just - AND - who decides who gets to decide? And by what and whose standards would such decisions be made?

In Saudi Arabia a 19-year-old woman has been sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes because she violated a strict interpretation of Islamic law even though she had been raped. The rapists have been sentenced to prison as well, but the young woman is still being held at least partly responsible not for the rape itself but for her own actions in violating a law that is, incidentally, partly designed to protect women but must also surely be a reflection of Islamic cultural values. Western leaders have prevailed upon the royal family on the woman's behalf to intervene and revisit this case for the sake of justice, which is certainly a right if not a moral obligation of western nations, and the Saudi foreign minister has promised to give it another look.

Beyond this, however, does the western world have a reason, legal or otherwise, to expect the Saudi kingdom to do anything more? According to local customs and Sharia law, the woman has been sentenced and there seems to be no dispute that she was in fact out in public with a male who was not related to her. Her reasons for being with this male are irrelevant just as it is completely irrelevant that we westerners do not understand or even agree with such laws. What more can the west reasonably expect when Sharia law seems clear and understood by the population?

None of this is to suggest that the young woman was raped because she violated the law. Quite simply, she was raped by criminals just as thousands of other women around the world have been, and there is no way - according to any reasonable standard - that she deserved it or "asked for it" or "had it coming". Some western leaders have called her sentence "barbaric" and indeed it is ... according to western standards. According to local custom, however, it is the law of the land and probably comes as no surprise to citizens of the kingdom even if they might consider her sentence excessive. She was initially sentenced to only 90 lashes but was subsequently sentenced more harshly when she went public with her plight.

In the Sudan, an English woman faces possible jail time and 40 lashes for allowing her predominately Muslim elementary school students to select the name "Muhammad" for a teddy bear. Apparently it is considered to be a misuse of The Prophet's name or is somehow disrespectful to Islam itself; therefore, the western woman is to be punished according to Sharia law which goes back to one of my many original questions: how can a westerner be held responsible for violating a law that is specific to the region and the culture, especially when she maintains that she had no intent to disparage Islam, the prophet, or Muslims. "Muhammad" is a common name among Muslim males; what westerner might even suspect that attaching this name to a cute, cuddly teddy bear for the purpose of teaching children about animals could be considered disrespectful, let alone a violation of religious law?

Since 9/11, American politicians and wanna-be’s have pounded the pulpits and insisted that they will “stand up to the Saudis” especially since most of the attackers were Saudi citizens. Politicians try to convince us that they are tough enough to handle such “barbarians” but the truth is, they are as civilized as any other. It just is that they have an entirely different world perspective and sense of justice. We call something wrong such as 200 lashes or public beheadings, but they call abortion what it is and wonder where we get our own sense of values. They see homosexuality for what it is and wonder how we dare to compare our civilization and sense of right-and-wrong to theirs.

What is just? What is right? Honestly, it just depends on how and where one is raised. I think it must really be that simple. There can be external forces that may compel us to live under and abide by certain standards, but it does not necessarily mean that we would agree with it. It is clearly illegal to drive beyond the posted speed limits, but Americans don’t seem to have a problem with pushing the envelope on the interstate.

What is right? It seems to be whatever one can get away with, and that standard alone is indeed universal.