Michael E. Tigar: Mr. Davis, the question you pose is a perennial one. You know, in 1608 or so, Hugo Grotius in his monumental treatise wrote about what he proclaimed to be universal human rights; and among the universal human rights was slavery, under certain carefully limited circumstances. Now by the early 1800's, slavery of course was the law in the United States and it was affirmed as a just part of our constitutional system, even though many of the most influential countries in the world had rejected it. By 1841, Justice Story was able to say for our Supreme Court that slavery violated universal laws of justice. So you see traditional values have always acted as a break on the recognition of so called universal rights. I think the problem lies in our easy acceptance of some idea of universality, which after all if we take the example of Grotius, simply means as far as I can see right now. Our struggle, yours and mine, is to work within the context of existing social orders, to improve our own perception of what is and is not universal, and then to seek to establish and maintain institutions of justice that permit the progressive realization of an increasingly broad and shared view of what universal human rights might consist of. And in that process, we ought to be listening as well as trying to teach, because cultures that may very well have principles that you or I would regard as inconsistent with our vision of human rights may have a great deal to teach us about areas of human striving to which we may not have paid sufficient attention.