Reflections: Testimony

Mike is the headmaster of the prestigious private school, Avery Academy, nestled in the beautiful state of Vermont. One evening, he receives a tape from his secretary and is grimly asked to view its contents. The tape turns out to be his worst nightmare as he sees three senior boys engaging in sexual activities with an underage girl. All four are from his school, with two of the boys being the cream of their graduating class and in Mike’s high regards. In Vermont, sex with a minor qualifies as sexual assault, a serious crime that would wipe out the boys’ futures. Even as Mike tries to contain the damage to within the school’s premises, and somehow salvage the school’s reputation and mitigate the boys’ punishment, the Internet is flooded with the video stream, leaving him little time to think and react. That evening, and that tape brings about an avalanche of irrecoverable havoc, ripping out people’s lives and dreams. Anita Shreve writes an emotionally powerful story that vividly captures the perspectives of all the different people involved in the scandal, and begs the question of the place and spirit of ethics in this whole episode.

I loved the depth and breadth of Shreve’ thorough and intense exploration of how one event - one impulsive event can cause a tornado of consequences and alter people’s lives forever. I often ponder on how fragile life is in the face of such little events. There are super-powers who coldly calculate people’s lives as pawns in their manipulative strategies to amass power and wealth and get by the scrutiny of laws and ethics. Such people thrive, and here were four teenagers who succumbed to their hormones and lost themselves for an hour of their lives, and yet, the law books are so stringent in their definitions of right and wrong, that the spirit of ethics gets grossly misplaced. All parties on the tape were partaking in consensual sex. While I’m not encouraging and looking past the consequences of teenage sex, especially with underage, vulnerable girls, I don’t advocate a punishment so severe that it obliterates people’s lives, leaving little room for holistic reformation. The trauma of the punishment outweighs the lesson learned, and it only worsens the problem. And the really gut-wrenching part is - it is the boys, the men who pay the price for the rest of their lives as this black-mark tags along with them. The final consequences of this episode were far more unethical and undeserved than the theoretical structures of the ethics behind why the act was wrong and censured.

The book is organized through the voices of the individuals caught in the scandal. No person meant to cause the catastrophe, yet each had their own private issues (who doesn’t?) and small events added up and magnified into a monster during that particular evening. And thanks to the scavenging media, everything was blown out of proportion, malignantly twisted and crumpled. Shreve’s ability to accurately get to the root of the psychological bent of mind of the characters, and to realistically portray their deepest thoughts and emotions is laudable. This story encompasses more than just the nature of teenage rebellion. It subtly teases out the questions of who are the real victims, who are the perpetrators, which event was the catalyst, and who mishandled the whole episode. In a tangled imbroglio like this, there are no concrete answers, yet, the mind can’t be mollified without tormenting itself for answers, and looping itself on the what-if questions. The tentacles of the fateful circumstance gripped so many more people than just the ones who committed the act, and deformed their lives in so many ways.

Despite the weight of the subject, the story is not depressing. It is thought provoking and ends on an optimistic note. It makes us the see the bigger picture in any dire scenario, and urges us to be humane at the right places, and at the right time. Without empathy, compassion and forgiveness, we can never hope to reform troubled individuals, and this statement comes out strong. Ethics and Laws are merely made of words that came out of our heads. Focusing on the technicality and linguistic nature of those sentences and missing the essence of the thoughts and concepts, is a crime in itself.

Reflections: How Good People Make Tough Choices

The title seems so perfectly alluring to a hapless person stuck in a turbulent dilemma. Does the book hold its promise in being a comforting guide, shedding those much needed insights and lead to a point of miraculous revelation? Yes and No. That's just the nature of ethical complexities. What the book does is structuralize the process of moral analysis and reasoning based on formal paradigms, and through examples of numerous moral dilemmas, explicates the types of resolution principles that can be applied. Kidder brings a balanced and comprehensive approach to defining, analyzing and resolving dilemmas. In the end, the book is an exercise in bolstering one's ethical fitness.

Before detailing the obvious, here are some things I found interesting:
1. Children apparently go through a six-staged process in the evolution of moral judgments. Stage 1 is fear of punishments and respect for authority. Stage 2 is formed out of the sense of equal exchange and fairness ("How come my sister has two candies, while I have one?"). In Stage 3, they are dominated by stereotypical roles of "good" behavior in accordance with others' expectations (Mommy says I should get good grades). By Stage 4 they have a more generic structure formed out of rules and duties. In Stage 5, they start realizing the smudged boundary between good and bad, yet strive to act on "legal" terms. Finally in Stage 6 they move beyond rules and duties and start contemplating about bigger pictures on universal moral principles, human rights, dignity etc. I like this definition of moral progression, although I'm not sure all children graduate to stage 6... otherwise we wouldn't have adults who are stunted at Stage 2.
2. Apparently men and women have a different sense of morality; men are driven towards a more justice driven approach calling for equality, whereas women gear towards a care based approach emphasizing on empathy, compassion and mercy (and the need to minimize "hurt"). Stereotypical you think? Well, research studies don't lie ;)
3. While we all argue about the relativism of Moral philosophy and how it's almost impossible to define a code of absolute ethics, Kidder argues that there are some universal tenets by which we all abide, no matter the circumstance, or era. As a thought experiment, if you were put in a parachute (not a helium balloon), floated down to some random place/village/city in the world, grabbed an item belonging to the first person you met and tried to run with it, it will be clearly unacceptable, no matter what religion, time period or race. Every moral principle shares a common core. Often times, moral dilemmas don't arise merely out of differences in values/principles, but they are based on differences in definitions, specific to a context. We all know killing is bad... but what defines killing? When does life start and when does it end? These are ethereal questions with no definitive answers, but are based only on faith and opinions.

The term "Good" in the title might bother a few people - how can a book dealing with the tangled web of moral philosophy use such an ambiguous word in such an obviously simple manner? Who are good people? What makes them good? For one, I'm not suggesting that I'm one of those good paragons of virtues due to my reading this book. From my understanding, a "good" person in this context, refers to anybody who has a strong enough moral conscience to recognize a situation involving a clash of values, wherein the choices available to them are not easily discernible as "right" versus "wrong", as defined by their personal principles and moral conscientiousness. If a person insists on making a decision that is probably "more right", and more ethically reasoned than the other, then Kidder first asks them to ascertain the nature of values that are in conflict, by using these moral paradigms as tools for analysis:
1. Justice versus Mercy
Is your moral dilemma a tug between justice and mercy? While it is wrong to kill, euthanasia is seen as a merciful act to relieve suffering. While it is right to uphold justice by punishing the guilty, sometimes it is equally right to forgive and be merciful.
2. Short-term versus Long-term
Does the impending moral decision fit the short-term or long-term? While it is logical that long-term makes up the short-term, one needs to live through the short-term moment to be able to be a part of the long-term.
3. Individual versus Community
Does the "right versus right" dilemma involve serving an individual at the cost of a community, or vice versa? As important as it is to keep in mind the welfare of the community, it is us individuals who make up the community.
4. Truth versus Loyalty
Probably one of the most common dilemmas we face in day-to-day life. Human relationships are precious. No matter how hard the brutal light of truth glares at us, we humans incur a terrible emotional cost by jeopardizing relationships.

Having identified where our moral dilemma sits, we have isolated the issues at hand. We now know what values are at stake and in battle with each other. The next step is in resolving which value is to be chosen over the other. Kidder brings to use the commonly used ethical principles of resolution:
1. Utilitarianism, or ends-based thinking
It echoes "greatest good for greatest number". Predict your consequences, add up the losses and gains and pick the decision that yields optimal results. The only problems are - how does one add up emotions, and how does one predict all possible consequences? Not knowing whether tomorrow will even dawn, our knowledge of predicting long-term consequences is limited.
2. Kant's Categorical Imperative, or rules-based thinking
Act on universalized rules. Act such that you will be comfortable with the world adopting your decision as a universalized rule. If it's wrong to lie, say the truth at all costs, even if it means that such a truth will cause immense suffering. We all realize the rigidity of this Imperative and it's non-applicability to the myriads of unique problems that arise out of specialized circumstances.
3. Care Based Rule, or Aristotle's Golden Rule
Put yourself in the others' shoes and act as you would like them to treat you, if you were in their shoes. Empathy and compassion rule higher than mere intractable rules.

Each resolution guide is of course insufficient to be used as a blind template. Each has its limitations. But one needs to make a decision at the end of the day. The decision doesn't stem out of mere analysis - it arises out of stringent, meticulous and consistent exercising of these principles until a middle ground dawns on us, or we just reach an epiphany when it all boils down to choosing an option that helps us make peace with our conscience. Kidder likens ethical fitness to physical fitness. It takes months/years of exercise to get physically fit. When we see a child struggling in the water, it's not the time to build our muscles - we need to be fit enough to just plunge and do the right thing. Ethical fitness is something that inherently builds within you, and no matter how much you analyze, you realize that you already know what to do. It's just a matter of moral courage to bring yourself to do it. It's a process, a journey - not a goal.

Free Speech

"Comrades, our dear leader has decreed that now is indeed the time to offer us the gift of free speech. From Monday, if anyone wishes to say anything at all - even wicked lies critical of the state, they may do so by visiting one of the free speech-booths set up all around the country. You may enter these sound-proof constructions and say whatever you want! No more can people complain about the lack of free speech! Lies uttered outside the booths will continue to be punished severely. Long live the revolution and our leader!" (Original Source: Free Speech, by Alan Haworth)

A real satire isn't it? The inherent irony of defining free speech is akin to defining what "human rights" mean. Most textbooks on Ethics and Morality define two types of rights - absolute rights and context-dependent rights. Free Speech is often put into the category of context-dependent rights, although there are many vociferous debates on how something as fundamental as speech ought to be an absolute unquestionable right to us humans. Most of us are familiar with this debate and the positions adopted by a democratic government to balance this debate. However trite this topic maybe, I have never previously thought or written my thoughts on this, so here I go.

Any kind of freedom goes hand-in-hand with its equivalent responsibility. When one is given the right to free speech, s/he carries with it the obligation to be responsible for the consequences of that right. If the freedom is used to malign, slander, abuse, or falsely accuse, then such a "freedom" leads to a collective sweep of negative consequences within a community and threatens to disturb the balance of harmony. Are we humans wise enough to be trusted with such an absolute freedom?

Well, here's an account of a recent video I watched on road rage. Driver A cuts in front of Driver B. Driver B gets pissed off and uses the F word on Driver A. Driver A reciprocates with more swear words. Driver B shouts out more profanities, all the while racing Driver A at a ridiculously high speed. As the drivers race, Driver B thinks Driver A was aiming a pistol at him, and hence to defend himself, Driver B takes his gun and shoots at Driver A 16 times and kills the passenger. At prison, when Driver B is asked what he would have done differently, now that he has learnt his lesson, the response was, "I don't think I would have done anything differently. If I don't have the basic right to swear a few profanities to someone who is not a good driver, and to defend and express myself by showing my anger, what sort of a free country are we living in?"

Clearly right to free speech cannot be made absolute till people like the above exist, who can't be responsible enough for their consequences. The above example also leads us to the topic of freedom of expression. It's much easier to categorize freedom of expression as being context-dependent, else like the above scenario, murder would also become an absolute right. While contrasting this with speech, right to free speech appears more innocous. Speech does not constitute any physical action to lead to any physical damage- so why should it be taken so seriously. Isn't it easier to ignore words, and not let a series of vocal noise disturb or affect us? Many great peace advocates reiterate on this - "someone can abuse you with words only if you choose to take it". So why can't the right to free speech be absolute? But isn't the pen mightier than the sword? Speech enfolds ideas and thoughts. It does something more dangerous than murder - it can crawl into our minds and reprogram our thinking. It's like making our computers open to any sort of program. And often, thoughts influence actions, just as a virus can crash multitudes of servers.

Unfortunately, no one can come up with a code that describes acceptable and unacceptable speech as we can objectively distinguish between safe and viral programs. The question of good versus bad is a fundamental question, and the quest for its answer plagues every one of us. Till then, to me, right to free speech is much safer being context-dependent.

Pain's Remains

The auditorium was fraught with nervous onlookers as the doctor put on his mask and gloves and prepared to take his needle and thread to the conscious patient's tied down leg. As he drove the needle through the patient's flesh, the patient let out a ravaging scream of pain. But the next second he was calm as could be. "How do you find that?", asked the doc. "Quite, fine", replied the patient with a cheery smile. "I do remember you putting the needle through me, but I don't remember any pain." "So do you have any objection if I do the next stitch?" "Not at all, I'm not anxious at all," replied the patient, much to the amazement of the crowd. The doc turns and explains, "The process I have developed does not remove the sensation of pain, like an anesthetic, but it removes the memory of the pain which was on the patient's nervous system. If you're not going to remember your fleeting momentary pain, why fear it? The patient here, just demonstrated that. This enables us to conduct surgery even while the patient is fully conscious" (Source: The Pig That Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)


Thought experiments such as the ones I've been trying to analyze/think about, do get bizarre, sometimes stretching the boundaries of imagination, reason and plain comprehension. Many get me to the point of plain exasperation and agitation at just splitting hairs. This one surely qualifies as one of those. Yet, I'm aware that such excerpts also do make me confront those seemingly basic and most elementary of concepts that have been imbibed in me. It painfully makes me reevaluate and understand every single strand of reason and thought in me, makes me dig so far deep into the roots to discover that minute particle of reason, that although seems so pointless and unnecessary, does help me gain more clarity about how my thoughts have sprouted, where they've sprouted from, how they are connected, and how much pure reason is responsible for them. In the process of searching, I also end up rearranging a few to sit in the right places and brushing off the dust bunnies on those I haven't used in a long time. So, well, I'm ready to face yet another journey down the crevices.


Why is pain bad? What is pain? How is pain different from suffering?


Inflicting pain is associated with immorality since it leads to misery and suffering. Pain is not just the momentary sensation of misery, but it also forms a component of fear, due to the miserable anticipation, and the memory of going through the trauma and healing the scars. When the memory of the pain is removed, it is hypothesized that one will no longer have any fear of facing it. If my memory of the pain of scathing myself is removed, I wouldn't know how it feels like to burn myself, and hence will have little fear. If all that's remaining is just the momentary shoots of fleeting pain, will that qualify as suffering? If inflicting pain is bad, is it still wrong if the suffering associated with it is removed? I answer, YES and YES.


For one, even if I have never been subject to a particular type of pain, my knowledge that it will hurt, is enough to put me into a fearful anticipation of it. I have never had a root canal treatment, yet I wouldn't say I am fearless about it. I wouldn't care if I lose my memory of the pain, I would still be apprehensive of the anticipation, because it's common sense that it will hurt without Novocaine. The patient in the excerpt is just weird and brave, maybe masochistic. Secondly, even if the pain be fleeting, lasting just a second and I'm assured of forgetting it, time is but abstract. Those 60 milliseconds, 3600 microseconds can last an eternity in my head. And to subject any person, any animal with the argument that the person/animal will only experience a series of momentary sensations of pain, which will be forgotten, does not hold strong. In that one second, the body and mind is put through searing torture, and nothing can justify inflicting it, when it can be avoided. It still qualifies as suffering.


Maybe if all my sensations of pain (spanning my whole life) are removed, would I be any braver, because I don't even know the meaning of pain? No. I can still see people scream with pain as a needle is stuck into them, and that's enough to make me suffer with fear of anticipation. That's just me. Many times, it's not just the memory, or anticipation of the pain, it's the combined trauma of going through something unpleasant. To me surgery is unpleasant. And why would compassionate and rational human beings try to inflict something unpleasant, however brief, when it can be avoided?


Some argue that pain is merely a state of mind, and I have heard of great people going through surgeries without anesthesia. This analysis doesn't apply to such enlightened people. It concerns those people who still haven't conquered pain. It is not the least bit ethical to inflict pain on such people, when it can be avoided.


******************************
PS - My rambling does not include a major component of most pain - the emotional aspect. The thought experiment is merely concerning physical pain; whether in concept, the definition of physical pain and the fear of it will cease to exist if the sensation of physical pain is removed from memory. Doing so is obviously against the basic lessons Nature tries to teach us and survival will be pretty hard, but that is beyond this particular thought experiment. It concerns the ethics of inflicting pain, if the concept of physical pain ceases to exist.