> Fine as far as that goes, but it is not an act of exoticising for
> someone to say that perhaps your "ideas of justice", even if its shared
> by a "lot" of Iranians, may neither be universal nor shared by the
> majority. Rather, I suspect, it is the assumption that indeed your
> ideas of justice are universal that is driving this accusation of
> exoticisation i.e., you seem to be suggesting that if X does not agree
> that a majority of Iranians share your idea of justice, then X is
> exoticising Iranians (correct me, if wrong).
>
> IMHO, ideas of justice can be universalised but only in the form a
> framework.
We're on the horns of a dilemma here.
1. We can implement some universal framework of justice, in which case we must socially sanction local forms of justice that do not comply with the universal framework. Overriding the local forms requires us to violate basic principles of self-determination and democratic rule (and ironically, I can't resist pointing out, those principles themselves are often presented as part of the universal framework of justice!).
2. We can honor the principle of self-determination and democratic rule in the implementation of local forms of justice, in which case a universal framework of justice must be abandoned. I suppose all societies everywhere could eventually converge on the same universal framework of justice without coercion, but that's quasi-theological speculation.
I have to say I don't see any satisfactory solution to this dilemma. Taking either position requires me to sacrifice some fundamental principles and values.
Miles