Reflections: A Personal Matter

Oe Kenzaburo is the 1994 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature. I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I find most books of well acclaimed authors a mystery. Perhaps I’m just a philistine, but I go into these books with expectations and trepidations, and I either come out of the experience extremely intimidated and feeling inadequate or just wanting for more. A Personal Matter made me want for more.

The central plot of the novel is both simple and complex. It is the story of a man coming to terms with the birth of his first son, born with a rare medical complication. The protagonist, referred simply as the “Bird” (due to his fragile physical and mental frame), is firstly unprepared to become a dad. He’s in complete denial and is vexed with anxiety. He hates his work, is unhappy in his marriage, dreads the prospect of being a dad, and generally hates everything about himself and his life. Pretty bleak. His self worth is little to none and his anxiety and fear towards facing anything in life is crippling. It is precisely in the midst of this troublesome period that he gets a call from the hospital saying that there is something terribly wrong with his son. His mother-in-law hints at getting rid of the “monster” child and the doctors try to hint at something similar. His wife desperately banks on him to save their child. What is fragile Bird to do when all he wants to really do is flee away from everything and turn back time?

Reading the “synopsis” of the story, you would appreciate why the novel is both simple and complex. There is only one simple, honorable answer to the question plaguing Bird - He needs to try and save his child. But given Bird’s frame of mind, it isn’t so simple. The short and taut novel is about Bird’s journey towards accepting the realities of what is happening around him and trying to face his responsibilities. There is never a boring, dragging moment in the story. Bird is caught in a whirlpool of time and emotions, and events unfold fast. The anxiety that Bird throbs with is so palpable. He goes to the very extreme of cowardice and irresponsibility and then as if he is incapable of anymore denial, takes a sharp turn. This is where I found myself wanting for more. There are so many interesting themes to this novel but Kenzaburo focuses all his attention on Bird’s plagued inner journey and tunes out the rest. Even Bird’s journey seems to be preemptive and rushed, although I appreciate how Bird connected with his conscience and changed himself.

I was expecting more on the role of Choice in a man’s life when he would rather do without choice or responsibility. I wanted Kenzaburo to take the reader through a realistic journey of acceptance - one that takes time, internal angst, and even mistakes and realizations along the way. Bird goes through angst, makes mistakes and fumbles, but the “realization” part was lacking. I guess Bird’s rapid journey makes sense, given the time pressure involving a sick infant. But,  there was more time dedicated to how Bird tries to run away from the problem itself and very little focus on how he actually comes around - which is the meaty piece, according to me. Perhaps that is the elusive mystery… maybe people do come around in a flash in such emotionally draining and time sensitive situations.

The social thread in this story - of how not just society, but even doctors and grandparents look at an ill child as being unwanted and “abnormal” had a lot of potential waiting to be developed. I can imagine so many unwritten pages dealing with the intersection of Japanese culture, society, and consequently, the moral as well as social implications that go with one’s choice.

All that said, this is a well written novella with a starkly drawn protagonist. I read this book in May of this year, but I still vividly remember Bird and all the emotions he goes through. It explains why Kenzaburo is so revered in the literary world. 

Reflections: The Reluctant Fundamentalist

Everyone’s been talking about this book and movie lately. And of course, the timing of everything. Yeah, timing is something, because I came across this book a few weeks ago by chance, and after reading the first page, I checked it out, came home and read it all in one sitting. It is that much of an intense and interesting book. Only later did I realize that it was soon coming out (well it has come out as I type) as a movie, adapted and directed by Mira Nair. Coincidence, really. Timing again.

Since everyone’s been talking about this book/movie, dissecting and articulating all the powerful themes questions, I am now at a loss for words Everything has already been said. Anything I say now is going to seem paraphrased, regurgitated from captions and headlines. So, keeping aside the themes, here are some thoughts about the book itself. It is beautifully and intelligently written. Its narrative structure is extremely unique and very well handled.

At a quaint cafe in Lahore, Changez, a smart Pakistani, strikes up a conversation with a mysterious American man about his life and experiences in America. Actually, it is much less of a conversation and more of a monologue, especially how the narrative is, but despite it being so, it is one of the best monologue-esque narrative pieces I have read. It is crisply written with wry humor, sarcasm, intelligence, and eloquence. The American on the other side is never described, only implied. Yet, his character assumes a definitive personality - perhaps tinged with some generalization, but vivid and realistic for the reader to place him. The subject of torn identity/loyalty between one’s country of origin and the country of promise & opportunities is at the core of the book, but that’s not all there is to it. And thankfully, the story doesn’t take us down trite and beaten paths on which several books and movies have ventured. It explores the complicated net of issues surrounding identity, racism, patriotism, capitalism, and fundamentalism as perceived by a Pakistani Muslim post the pivotal turning point of 9/11. The author compellingly drives home the point that anything in its fundamentally extreme state is unfair and dangerous - be it religion or capitalism.

The story moves at a taut and gripping pace. Almost all of us can relate to Changez’s angst, regardless of where we come from. It raises all the hairy and complicated questions that we try to evade and ignore as we go through life just focusing on our little bubble and making sure it stays afloat. But when our bubble gets pricked or comes dangerously close to being destroyed by political forces beyond us, it’s only then do we pause to confront and deal with the difficult questions. According to me, these political questions are far more relevant and thorny than just the socio-cultural dilemmas frequently discussed in this genre.

The ending is ambiguous, yes, but it fits in line with the book’s character. The few characters, and the minimal number of words and pages belie the impact of this book. It’s a very interesting read that I recommend. 

Reflections: The Last Letter from Your Lover

After a serious accident that leaves her amnesic,  Jennifer Stirling returns to an unfamiliar place that everybody calls “her home”, to a strange man that everyone calls “her husband”. As she pieces together her past life and identity, she comes across a passionate love letter that is addressed to her. Only hitch is - the author is clearly not her husband. With the letter as her guide, she is determined to reclaim fragments of her old life that promised happiness and love. Her struggle is presented through the lens of the austere Victorian morals that still gripped London in the 1960s. How does one assess and put into perspective personal freedom against moral responsibility? The book addresses some of these questions through Jennifer’s epic love story.

I had high expectations for this book. I read a couple of glowing reviews for it that made it seem like the book was profound in its discussion of heavier themes on morality. And as predictable as it can get, I was drawn to it like a moth to light. Well, the book attempts to be more than a sappy love story, but it didn’t hit all the points for me. It is very much reminiscent of Anna Karenina in its portrayal of infidelity. The plot seems to have a formulaic approach. Most of its structure is borrowed from popular culture, literature and movies, so everything about the story is trite and predictable. In addition, it leaps and shuffles across time periods without conveying anything much or adding any dimension to the narration. And, I found the book to be far too long for the content it holds.

But there are certain interesting aspects. The author explores infidelity from multiple perspectives - the cheating husband, the cheated-on wife, the cheating wife, the cheated-on husband, and of course the unattached lover. Is it ever justifiable to have an affair? What about children? How important is one’s own personal freedom and happiness when it threatens to affect the happiness of others? Does morality and moral responsibility take different shades with the passage of time and evolution of society’s values? Heavy questions. But only a small portion of the book addresses the questions. For the most part, the story makes the questions seem black and white because it is narrowly presented through the specific contexts of the characters. The author tries to convince the reader that what A does is clearly wrong and what B is doing is clearly acceptable. One is bad and the other is good. The good is eventually favored in a grand twist of (too many) turns, and the bad gets burned. This approach was simplistic to me, and the themes fell apart as the rest of the book took the predictable journey that all romance novels take. Life is full of grey areas, not always happy endings, and serendipitous coming together of ideal circumstances. Although I’m not a hardened cynic that scoffs at happy endings, I do scoff at the heavily contrived ones. Many parts of the story didn't resonate with how reality works. It is just a feel-good, light read.

The book tries hard to make Jennifer’s story epic, but it did not touch me. I could definitely sympathize with some of the characters and I could surely understand Jennifer and her motivations, but the book didn’t leave a positive impression on me. 

 

Reflections: Les Miserables

After serving his time in prison for stealing bread, Jean Valjean steps out in anticipation of freedom and a new life, but what he is met with is repugnance, hatred and prejudice in 19th century France. Thanks to Providence, with a touch of kindness and a determined steely will he rises up in life, but only to be hounded by the beast of justice that steadfastly remains blinded to the purity of his conscience. Amid haranguing circumstances, Jean Valjean continues to orient the purpose of his life to serving those in need, and in remaining immaculately clean in spirit. He leads his entire life being morally and spiritually pure. Les Miserables is a moving, immortal classic that explores deep social and philosophical questions on our existence.

Although I’ve read only two books of Victor Hugo’s so far, he is one author whose prose is so emotionally intense and powerful, it affects me deeply. There is so much wisdom, insight, truth, beauty, and simplicity to his writing. His use of metaphors is astounding. Every sentence is loaded with them in unimaginably articulate ways. As if to prove the point, I randomly opened a page from this 600-paged book, glanced at a paragraph and reread this:
“It is society buying a slave. From whom? From misery. From hunger, from privation. Melancholy barter. A soul for a bit of bread. Misery makes the offer, society accepts.”

In a nutshell, it describes one of the themes of the book. Society drives misery to breed and mutate with man-made rules that are often divorced from humanity or compassion. How does one escape the vicious cycle of poverty and misery if there is no way to break out of it? How is morality serving its purpose if it only results in the oppression of the already downtrodden and abused section?

The themes intersect with my most favorite and insistent thoughts on morality. Hugo brilliantly addresses the philosophy of morality (and justice) through the moral dilemmas that Jean Valjean struggles to resolve. Almost always, the question of what is good is murky. There are no clear, straight answers. The deed alone doesn’t explain the answer. The intention and consequences complete the picture. One needs a higher faculty of thought and emotion to truly comprehend good from wrong. And sometimes, one requires a deeper realization to understand when and whom to forgive. Hugo convincingly stresses on the immense power of mercy, empathy, and compassion.

Similar to books of those times (such as Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov), the human conscience is treated as the voice of God, or higher awakening. When words, thoughts, and rationality fail to provide us with answers, the conscience does.

I relished every bit of the book. I could read Victor Hugo’s words a million times and emerge with a new insight every single time. The only part of the book that detracted my interest was the description of the internal rebellion in Paris. But through the civil war, Hugo indicates both internal and external awakening of a change, of a reformation, of a struggle for equality, and of a perception of higher truths.

It’s a beautiful and powerful book that both satisfies the idealistic and pragmatic viewpoints on morality.

The Bigger Picture

Marsha had joined the police force with the objective to protect the public and make sure justice was meted out. She often told herself that such an objective was more important than the set of rules that come with upholding it. She often had to remind herself about this, for she had a tough time making up her mind to break rules to eventually uphold her ideals. And now there was this nagging case - a good man had made a terrible mistake, resulting in the death of an innocent woman. However, Marsha had enough evidence with her to frame the story differently and convict a different man of the crime. This man, according to her (and the entire police department), was responsible for a number of cold-blooded murders, but had escaped every time due to insufficient evidence. Marsha strongly felt that this criminal ought to be in prison, instead of that other harmless man who, due to a very unfortunate slip of an accident had killed the innocent woman. To her, she was upholding the spirit of justice. (Original Source: Insomnia, directed by Christopher Nolan)

Will I never tire of writing about this theme and asking the same questions with slightly different flavors? Not yet. The more I think about the core of morality, and the more I write and rearrange my thoughts, I hope that one day I will be satisfied with my answers. Completely assured. I know that such a day is nearing, but it may not be today.

The one thing I can now state with certainty is that, Morality can only address one of two things in most extreme scenarios - the practicality of a situation, or the satisfaction that the underlying  theoretical principles of morality are upheld. Having finally reconciled to that, it seems like a no-brainer to be practical than sit and argue about the philosophical implications. The world functions on pragmatism. That's the reason why we (the public) are perhaps relatively safe today. If rules are followed to the t all the time, ironically, everything comes to a stop. There have been numerous examples of labor protests, wherein laborers decided to follow all the rules stringently (rather than abstain from working), and work still came to a grinding halt. There are even incidents of the traffic police deciding to protest by sticking to their rule books and ensuring no traffic law was violated. And as one can guess, traffic came to a halt. If the police department had always been intent on following rules, I'm sure several hardened criminals would have been missed, only to trap those who were at the wrong place at the wrong time, thus jeopardizing society's safety. We can all argue that jeopardizing society's welfare is antithetical to the spirit of morality.

I have also realized that when a dire situation stares us in the face, and the clock keeps ticking, people act on their gut feeling - call it intuition or a reflex, but the answer comes surging to them. The rest of the dilemma is in trying to understand how to rationalize the answer to fit to the rules and framework of morality and legality, because we are never content till we try to mellow the pangs of guilt and the nagging voice of conscience. This is what Marsha is trying to do. And I'm sure most of us can understand her rationalization. It's different to read about a hypothetical scenario with the people and the lives of others being imaginary, and then leisurely chew on the situation to come up with the politically correct answer. But I'm sure our attitudes would be different if we were part of the scenario, if the men were known to us directly or indirectly, if we had directly suffered under the hands of the criminal, if we were related to the harmless man, or if we had witnessed the atrocities of the criminal.

Utilitarianism, is thus the principle that best mirrors the practicality of most of our decisions. The consequences matter, for we live to experience them. Besides, the principle is not applied with the intention to be malevolent in any way. The intention is to safeguard the public; trickling down to the intention to survive, and to survive as peacefully as possible. Eventually, it stems from our self-interest to protect ourselves (do I hear a sigh of relief? ;)). If we hadn't acted on that instinct, we would have ceased to exist. And so, the epiphany is - morality is intricately twined with self-interest, although it is masqueraded as only being responsible for the interest of the community. Individuals make up community... but many times, benefit of the community takes a higher precedence than individual benefits. Collective survival of the species is important for individual survival.

Therefore, with the assumption (or the clause) that Marsha's intent is not to abuse her powers, and that the criminal does not have any signs of reformation to stop being a threat to the community, the spirit of morality/justice is upheld by framing the criminal instead of the harmless man. Doesn't it set a wrong precedent? Well, in reality, we have suffered through eons, having already set multiple "precedents" of hurting millions of innocent people. With the spirit of justice having already been grossly annihilated, we are well past setting precedents. Why miss the forest in search of the trees?

Reflections: Anna Karenina

As a gift from my father, Anna Karenina has been longingly sitting on my shelf for quite a while now, with Anna's piercing portrait throwing accusing and pleading glances at me to pick her up and read her story. I attribute my delayed reading to the only deterrent - the monstrous size of the book, threatening to seriously injure my wrists if I were to so much as lift it nonchalantly. But, as part of my resolutions, I slogged like a diligent student burning the midnight oil in preparation for a serious exam, and now I bear the same sweet exhaustion that one has after accomplishing a strenuous feat. This is in no way to imply that my read was tedious. It was pleasantly intense - heavy with emotions, saturated with thoughts.

It's hard to assimilate my thoughts on a book of such high ranks. It's a book not just on the life of Anna, but represents a chunk of time that reflects life in late 19th century Russia. Tolstoy, as was Dostoevsky, was not merely an author to have created this masterpiece in literature. His astute perspicacity in so many fields - philosophy, psychology, sociology, and religion, is the reason why his name and this book still reside in esteemed hallmarks.

Tolstoy probes into the fundamental facets that plague our existence - love, marriage, children, infidelity, hypocrisy, societal duty, religion, spirituality, morality, philosophy, existentialism, birth and death. With a book so exhaustive, I;m trying to comb for meaningful words in a tangle of thoughts. Anna's story is legendary. A bewitchingly charming lady, she is a mother of a young boy, and a devout, albeit forlorn wife of a stately diplomat. To many, the term "loveless marriage" produces the sensation of grating nails on a wall. At large, a conservative society cannot fathom or produce an iota of empathy or sympathy for such a situation. But Tolstoy's words drive home the meaning of being unhappy, cold and isolated in a societal charade called marriage. When she unexpectedly gets caught in the talons of passionate love, Anna's soul awakens anew and longs to live its life. She heedlessly follows her heart and her passions, and leaves behind a bitter and fiery trail of misery and torment. Anna's act doubtlessly surfaces as a thoughtless debasement of her crude passions, but when we journey into her deepest inner turmoil, the hardest of hearts will find a trace of sympathy for her.

So far, I have been able to clearly demarcate infidelity as something to be censured. But for the first time, my feelings and thoughts fluctuated between reproach, sympathy, censure and pity for Anna. Despite Tolstoy's subtle exposition that being a slave to our passions is bound to lead one to a fractured and peace-less state, his portrayal of Anna, of the characters and her life, cannot be more objective and immersed in reality. He never thrusts an overpowering message of right or wrong. He brings out the black and white in each of us, the true dilemmas, and the true demons that haunt us. When society ostracizes Anna, he fires anger at our constrained and tightly bound rules, when Anna's son is abandoned and is traumatized, he brings in admonition tainted with helpless pity towards Anna, and when Anna spirals down with her inane and irrational emotions when her life with her lover gets arduous, he creates plentiful abhorrence towards the very lady whose plight the reader would have amply sympathized with in the previous page. Only an adroit writer can achieve such realistic evocations. Anna stands pitiful and helpless, despite her foibles, which try as we might, cannot be subject to harsh judgment.

With Anna's story forming the heart of the novel, Tolstoy culls out the meaning of marriage and the ironical way in which our society is framed with hypocritical importance paid to the legalized branding of a husband and a wife. Anna's life with her lover is cast in comparison with her former married life with her husband, and the fake life of another woman, who is legally bound to her husband, despite his salacious activities. The age old question - is it much worthier to please the unknown eyes of the society, by remaining in a sham called marriage, wherein both people have drifted apart, retain no love or companionship for each other, but stick together for the sake of children and security in society? How is a non-legalized relationship that epitomizes the true spirit of matrimony, immoral? Anna's marriage was arranged by her family. So should the perils of one such a mistake be undergone all through one's life? Many are bound to see Anna's emotions as immature and profane, but I truthfully don't know how to evaluate such a situation. In my simpleton view, when children are involved, one has to consider them as important factors in the equation. There is no excuse to evade such a responsibility. My view of morality encompasses only the sphere of children, nothing more. Society and religion dissolve for me. Yet I can't rebuke Anna, for the reason for her tragedy and incessant torture was because of her guilt and pangs for her son. It's like watching a car that accidentally veered into a slippery turn, slide down hill with very little control to revoke that single impulse of a mistake. Precisely the reason why I feel it's unfair that the rules in our society have to be so unrealistically and mercilessly tight, that they fail to embody any realm of forgiveness, empathy or compassion.

In the heat of such traumatic revelations, Tolstoy deftly shows how the strength garnered from religion and spirituality can guide a man into noble and virtuous directions. He shows how forgiveness can envelope the soul with the much needed peace and clarity, and how hatred and harbored negativity lacerates our presonality, awakening an embittered, cruel side of us. As much as he emphasizes the glory of spiritual strength, he also takes an unbiased view of how religion, when applied without thought or meaning can be used as a double-edged sword to bring out the worst in a person. A staunchly religious person who merely conforms to the external decorum of rules and society and doesn't look into the integrity and purity of his thoughts and actions, is probably much more of a sinner. Through an array of characters in this novel, Tolstoy analyzes the thought process of a spiritual and religious skeptic. Agnostics teem aplenty amongst us, keen on using reason and science to deduce the meaning of life and everything around us. But Tolstoy shows how even a skeptic is rooted with an inherent need to grasp onto some form of higher faith when he confronts the many uncontrollable forces of our lives. The meaning of life is shown to be something imbibed deep within each of us, which cannot be attempted to be explained with reason, and articulated with words. We are all aware of a deep need to live true to our inner souls, and to work in the way of goodness; probably these are the only real purposes of our existence. To live, learn and follow our ingrained intuition of doing good. Perhaps it is our disappointment and denial that our purpose in life could be so simple and trite, that makes us delve into finding the meaning behind everything that exists around us. While I partially agree with this view, I guess I still have a long way to go to realize such a truth, and understand the design of our lives and the universe.

Finally, Tolstoy also threads in discussions on socialism and communism in connotation with Russia's social upheavals. Despite such heavy themes packed into this gigantic book, the prose is fluid, florid and deeply meaningful. The translation could not have been better. As with all classics, the characters in the book leave a lasting impression of having lived with you. It is truly incredible that Tolstoy can expertly and accurately articulate the emotions and thoughts of different kinds of people - a protective father, a controlling yet loving mother, an obedient daughter, an abandoned son, a lonely wife, a jilted husband, an anguished woman caught up in insecurity and jealousy, an unconditional friend, a relentless intellectual, and a passionate lover. It is astonishing that Tolstoy could verbalize those very unique and deep emotions that make us women ambiguous and capricious to understand. Here are a man's words spilling out those very evasive secrets on how a woman's mind and heart work.

Anna Karenina's haunting life is sure to live fresh in my memory for a long time to come.

The Good Bribe

The Prime Minister was striving to be a morally conscious politician, however oxymoronic the ambition may sound. A certain businessman who was known for his corruption and sleaze but who had successfully wriggled out of all criminal and civil convictions desired to be hailed and respected by the whole world. He approached the PM with an offer that he would donate 10 million pounds to help provide clean drinking water in scores of villages in Africa, provided the PM guarantees that he will be knighted in the upcoming New Year's honors list. If the PM were to disagree to this "offer", the businessman assured that he would surely squander his money, rather than put it to good use. Does it make any moral sense for the PM to sell one of his country's highest honors for a bribe that would be overwhelmingly beneficial to thousands of people? (Original Source: "The Pig That Wants to be Eaten", Julian Baggini)

One the one hand this scenario seems to be a little more straightforward because the stakes don't seem to be high on either sides. Well, of course thousands would be deprived of clean drinking water, but it is clear that the means by which clean water could be provided is, by Kantian terms, categorically wrong. But from a Utilitarian perspective, does it seem like moral pretentiousness to satisfy one's moral principle at the cost of such an opportunity wherein the consequences reduce to: 10 million pounds being prodigally spent versus being judiciously spent to save thousands and establish a future for many more thousands. And is it even realistic for a political leader to persevere to be so ethically clean?

In the short term, it might seem like honoring the businessman with a Knighthood has very minimal adverse effects to society at large. A businessman with as much clout and wealth would only get the ego-pampering of being addressed as "Sir", which seems harmless enough. But in the long term, the honorable title will slowly be tarnished and lose its honor and distinguished reputation, especially if such a trend continues. Apart from insulting other merit-worthy members of the Knighthood, it sets a universally unacceptable rule that money can buy reputation and honor. Rather than stand as inspirational role-models, unscrupulous men who weasel their way into being honored, set a horrendous example to young adults. Once morally wrong exceptions of this kind are begun to be made by each political leader, the values in the society will surely start degrading. The consequences of such moral degradation may not be apparent in the short term, but will start to show its ugly face in the long term.

Perhaps my evaluation is unrealistic to a political leader who faces corruption and morally challenging issues of much greater magnitude which threaten to incur extreme consequences, that something as seemingly "simple" as this case requires just a brush off the shoulder, rather than invest any deeper thought. Rigid straightforwardness without the ability to be diplomatic and smart enough to tweak and prune a few things and people along the way, seems a rather unsuccessful and unrealistic strategy for a PM to employ. Therefore, if the PM did consider to take the money in this case, I guess I can be tolerant and understanding of the decision from a practical standpoint, since the consequences are not too severe. But if he were to repeat this too often, I wouldn't be able to excuse his decision, for he starts to jeopardize the moral sanctity of the society, which is far more difficult to re-establish than provide proper infrastructure to a developing nation.

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.

Life Dependency

John made a careless mistake. Despite knowing that level 6 of the hospital was a restricted area, he inadvertently staggered out of the elevator on the sixth floor, owing to heavy intoxication from all the drinks he'd had with his friends. When he woke up on the hospital bed, he discovered that he'd been mistaken for a volunteer in a new life-saving procedure. Those patients who required vital organ transplants were being hooked up to another healthy volunteer, whose healthy organs kept both alive. Each donor who came forward would do this for 9 months, after which another donor would step in and support the patient. John spared no time in calling the nearest doctor and explaining what had happened. The doctor said, "I understand your anger, but then you have yourself to blame for behaving irresponsibly. The truth is if we let go of you now, the patient, an eminent violinist will die and the music world will face a huge loss. You will in fact be murdering him." John protested, "You have no right to say that. Even if he dies without me, how can you force me to sacrifice my life for the next 9 months!" (Source: A Defense of Abortion, by Judith Jarvis Thompson, in Philosophy and Public Affairs)


An allegory again, on a topic that has been beaten to death. Almost everyone holds a strong opinion on it and my take on it is nothing phenomenally insightful or novel. Still I found the allegory quite interesting, although obviously it's not a great one. In the real world, John can sue the hospitals for plugging his organs with another's just because he dropped asleep on a hospital bed. Secondly, abortion really doesn't boil down to the simple element of the ethics of ending another life that is dependent on the mother. Contrary to the excerpt, there is a more challenging phase for mothers and children after the period of 9 months.


If I were to bring in the question of morality into abortion, it's a matter of: a) ending a speck of life that is yet to develop, or b) potentially ruining the life of another being or person. I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of bringing in a new life when it is not assured of parents who can provide their best. If the woman/couple recognizes the conception as a mistake, then according to me, the most ethical thing to do is to spare bringing in such a child instead of messing their life. Although I'm in support of adoption, I don't advocate the idea of being careless and then dealing with adoption as a solution. Adoption is a solution to the current problem of providing abandoned and homeless children a home and a loving family which is yearning for kids. But it's understood that these children will invariably carry some emotional baggage and certain inevitable challenges due to being adopted. Why make them go through it, if there is a choice? Especially when we are in no dire need to keep up the population rate.


It troubles me to no end when I meet so many young children in schools being classified as "emotionally challenged", and listen to them talk about their angry mothers. It's grossly immoral to mess up these lives right from the tender ages. To convince a careless and precocious 15 year old girl to go through with a pregnancy is just a huge crime to the unborn child, more than it is to the young girl. Many have lashed back at me saying that there are no ideal circumstances to raise a child and one cannot take a course on parenthood before being one.


Is asking for the mother to be above 18, and to have a job (or for the father to have a job) to support and provide for the child, too much to ask in terms of circumstances? Isn't that stripped down to the barest of bare minimum? And if it were up to me, I would most certainly enforce every expecting mother/parent/couple to go through a basic psychology course on parenthood, and based on progress (or lack of it) they would need to retake courses, else they will not be entitled to complete custody of the child. Severe yes, but I have seen enough neglect of children to make me feel so.


In cases when the child is congenitally deformed, I think the choice is entirely up to the parents. No matter how loving and able such parents, in some sense I do find it immoral and cruel to inflict such a life on the child, when even normal and healthy ones struggle to survive in our jungle.

When Rationality Demands...

Sophia had always prided herself on her rationality. She would never take a decision that didn't conform to rationality and reason. Some motivations are of course not driven by reason - love, taste, character etc. But Sophia's argument was, not being rational didn't always imply irrationality. While it is neither rational nor irrational to prefer potatoes over tomatoes, it becomes irrational when a person who loves potatoes buys a pound of tomatoes, when circumstances don't dictate the purchase of one over the other. However, Sophia is faced with a dilemma now. A very intelligent friend of hers is trying to persuade her that it would be perfectly rational to set off a bomb which would kill millions of innocent people, without any foreseeable benefits that might arise due to the massacre. Sophia is sure that her friend's logic is skewed. But using her rationality she can't seem to place her finger on it. And the argument suggests that she needs to set off the bomb immediately, so time to think is hardly an option. Sophia is plagued with doubt, for she has always been against intuitions and hunches and only favored rational analysis. However if she follows reason in this case, she seems to feel that she would do a terrible wrong by killing people. Should she knowingly follow the less rational path, or trust reason over feeling and detonate the bomb? (Source: The Pig that Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)


What's up with these successive discussions involving bombs and massacre?! My blog is going to be soon blocked if this trend keeps continuing. First off, I really am not convinced with this excerpt. I don't know how an argument could be rationally solid if it involved -1) committing a gross crime of massacring thousands, and 2) have NO benefits from committing such a crime. I really cannot think of an analogous scenario. Rational analysis always consists of costs, benefits and risks triangle as part of decision making. If benefits are zero, and the costs SO high, I cannot fathom what sort of a rational decision-making strategy it would fall under. What could the "rational" motivations for such a crime be?


The reason why I'm so convinced that there has to be a flaw in the argument is not entirely due to the fact that there are no benefits. It is mainly due to the fact that the outcome of such rational thought is evil and morally wrong, and I've been conditioned to believe that objective truth/decisions arising out of reason will only lead to good, not evil. And that is my little prejudice, for I have failed to remind myself of two aspects -
1) good, evil, right and wrong are perceptions. Hitler had his perceptions of "benefits" when he waged the war and tortured the Jews. From his view, his decisions could conform to rationality and reason due to his assumptions, inputs and perceptions. However my immediate objection would be that his "reason" was flawed and doesn't objectively correspond to universally accepted norms/"truths". Yet, I also am aware that there are no books on universal "truths"; everything starts getting subjective.
2) reason without feeling, need not always lead to morally acceptable "good" decisions. Imagine a ship were being run by a machine with no human intervention. Due to a storm the ship is flung off course and there's very less fuel to navigate the ship. The machine has alerted rescue operators. In the meanwhile the machine takes an inventory of the rations available on board and decides that they have just enough to sustain the 50 member crew for 22 hours. Now the machine spots a man hanging onto a skimpy piece of plank, shouting for help, a little further away on the waves. The rational calculation spits out the result that spending fuel and rations on rescuing this man will put the other members of the ship at high risk of surviving. Hence the machine rationally decides not to rescue the man (saving one versus millions, again). Well, the decision still is "rational" if feelings , emotions and moral conditioning were isolated.

I'm reminded of a statement I read long back - "A psychopath's decisions maybe socially unacceptable and irrational, yet inside his mind, the decisions and acts were very much acceptable; they were psychologically rational, yet socially unacceptable, due to the presence of only "reason" and no feeling." So where am I going with all this? Is calling Sophia's friend/Hitler a psychopath my conclusion?


I understand that although the massacre doesn't seem to hold any benefits to me or Sophia, in the eyes of someone (at least the perpetrator) there should be some "benefits," for even a psychopath is assured of the benefit of satisfying his aberration. If Sophie herself cannot see any such benefit that can rationally convince her, she can comfortably bank on rationality to not carry forward with the act. But if she can perceive benefits, she most certainly needs to involve both her heart and mind to settle into a middle ground before "cold-hearted" logic dictates a move; and this decision is not as simple as buying potatoes or tomatoes, it involves thousands of innocent lives. The gravity of the situation begs to involve feeling along with reason. The previous post on exercising torture to save millions is one of the trillions of cases in the real world that debates on whether or not to involve the heart in such decisions.

Human beings have evolved to develop more emotions, empathy, and compassion to their species and to others. Otherwise we would still belong to the barbaric tradition of killing people with a disease that has no cure, in order to save ourselves. At such a stage in evolution it is a sign of barbarism if the heart is not given a chance to be voiced out, during such decision making.

Now onto the mention of intuition. What is intuition? In this excerpt, intuition is totally isolated from rationality and is tainted with a "soft" color of gut-feeling. Is intuition really so cut off from rational thought? A book that I recently read paints a very different and surprising picture - can you imagine doctors in ER and firefighters in emergency rescue operations acting on their intuitions to save lives? And yet that's how experts make decisions! How does an expert cook? Is it their conscious cognitive effort that goes behind how much of what to put, when and how to judge if the food is done. How do they react when they have the faintest smell of a cake burning? Ask them for rational analysis and tips and you would get nothing, except a few hints on sensory perception. Such knowledge/skill is quite tacit and it's hard to verbalize our actions through rational means. The author and many other researchers claim that intuition is nothing but our ability to perceive very subtle cues in the environment to inform our decision making, which in the end almost appears automatic and intuitive. Even those like Einstein and Feynman have claimed that their discoveries were a result of their intuitive imagination that was further explained through mathematical equations. But not all of us are geniuses to have the clarity to rationally verbalize all of our intuitive feelings. Feynman hence urges engineers to develop intuition and not always rely on analytical calculations.

But the word intuition is ascribed to many terms - ESP, sixth sense, clairvoyance and other concepts that go against the notion of free will, and that opens a huge can of other pestering questions that have no definitive answers. But the scientific definition of intuition at least attempts to bridge the gap between perceptual sensory cues (feelings) and reason. So at the end of this boring ramble, I insist that Sophia needs to use both her feelings and reason to make the decision. In this case, if her feelings overwhelm the cold-hearted logic of massacring thousands , especially when she foresees little to no benefit, it is justified to bank on feelings alone, for relying on feelings to make a decision is not necessarily irrational.

Tortorous Options

Hadi's captives were far more stronger and stubborn than he had expected. But he was bent on breaking their resolve, if only he could follow through on his threats to them. The father, Brad, was the real villain. It was he who had maliciously planted a bomb in the middle of a populated city, promising to kill thousands of innocent civilians. Only Brad knew where the bomb was planted and how it would detonate. His son, Jim, had no connection with this scheme and knew nothing about it. Hadi's trained intelligence told him that Brad would hardly utter a word if he were to be tortured...although he suspected him to break, if he were to see his son, Jim, being tortured in front of him. This is where Hadi's dilemma arises. Being a proponent of anti-torture, he was torn with the options available. The dilemma made it even more hard on Hadi, for Jim was innocent and any torture inflicted on him would be grossly immoral. Unfortunately, if this option wasn't exercised thousands of civilians would soon lose their lives. Hadi's moral courage was being tested. (Source: The Pig that wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)


I put off analyzing this dilemma for a while, because I was growing a little weary of the theme of right versus right. But my main impetus for discussion is to understand the reasoning behind different people's perceptions of right and wrong. Such views add multiple dimensions to the scenario and guide rationality into different avenues never ventured before. So I'm back again with the theme of moral dilemmas.


The above scenario is such a classic model to test the Utilitarian Theory of moral evaluation - "The greatest good to the greatest number". We've heard such rhetoric on sacrificing one to save millions. And this is a classic case for such a statement. I'm reminded of another question we used to be asked while young -- "Imagine there is going to be a nuclear holocaust, which can be averted (magically) by killing one person. Would you kill that one person to save humanity?"


In this case, the person is not killed, but "merely" abused physically and mentally. Does torture therefore get justified to some degree? Previous discussions weighed the dilemma of one's survival versus morality. But this one goes a step further and puts the responsibility of saving thousands of civilians on Hadi, with a very difficult and immoral option left to exercise. Hadi need not worry about saving himself -- it's his integrity versus thousands of families.


Rules and laws never work in all circumstances; to a large extent it's important to follow the spirit of the rule, rather than the letter. Therefore there is no denying that in this particular case, the mere contemplation of torture is inevitable and to some extent is justified. If we hypothesized that Hadi did go ahead with torturing Jim, such an exceptional case of justified torture can turn into a universal rule of exception by itself and may be exploited; especially when in the present world, prisoner abuse and torture are being grossly exploited and taken to inhumane levels. Soon enough thousands of innocent people who are not even suspected of criminal offense maybe tortured under seemingly analogous circumstances. It may not be a wonder if sons and daughters of alleged criminals get dragged to the police quarters to be tortured to gain knowledge of gang leaders and stolen jewels. I know stolen jewels versus thousands murdered is not the same equation. But it just doesn't sound "right" to justify this crime under the clause of an exceptional circumstance, whose consequences are much dire than lost jewels.


I wish I knew a little about criminal psychology and intelligent manipulations. Surely, there should be some other manipulation strategy that might work, rather than resort to torture. But I don't have much insights and no such training. All I could think of was to manipulate the son and make him cooperate by pretending as if he were being tortured, while in reality he was not. Hadi can threaten Jim that he had two options - 1) watch his father being cruelly tortured to get the truth out of him, or 2) cooperate with Hadi and pretend as if he were being tortured so that his father will tell the truth and also be saved from a grueling sentence from the court. The sort of deals lawyers present by asking the criminal to plead guilty or cooperate in exchange for reduced sentence. If Jim agrees, he can be asked to pretend being in pain while fake electric shocks were administered? I don't want to get into more details on how to put on a fake-torture act and turn this into a squeamish post, but that's my general line of thinking.


I know, in a way I have averted from dealing with the problem head on. What if Jim flat out refuses to cooperate? I don't know. In the worst case maybe Hadi, in view of his high moral integrity can make the court arrest him with charges of torture on an innocent civilian, if he does resort to that option in a dire attempt to save lives. His arrest will then continue to serve as a reminder that torture was being condemned despite being used at such a tough circumstance. He could also "tone down" on the extent of torture techniques employed. However, I still would argue to find other means of manipulation and extend on the fake-torture theory I presented.

On Capital Punishments - Old and New

I had a lot to say on Capital Punishments, and now I'm parched to say anything more. Below is my argument against capital punishments, when I was all of 20 years old. I shamelessly showcase my weak arguments that carry an air of amateurish faith in humanity. I had no concept of brevity, so excuse my rambling and silly analogies. I didn't want to edit and tarnish my pitiable innocence/stupidity.

**************************************************************************************

My thoughts as they were in May 2004

Its very true that practically speaking, we have no time on our hands to actually sit down and have a diplomatic talk over a cup of tea and try to sort things over with terrorists; because when we’re busy talking, a minimum of 200 new problems seem to crop up. With terrorism and ruthless violence at their hilt, we have no patience to talk about reforming people. I mean its hard enough to make someone close to you, understand your viewpoint, how the heck is a hard core criminal going to be reformed by you?? So I guess all that justifies us to play God and arrange for these people to be shipped to what we call as hell.


Consider this analogy. At 5, when you loved to doodle on the walls (well, I used to), and your mom wagged her rolling pin at you, and said “next time I see you scribble you’re going to be spanked like crazy!”, did you stop doodling or whatever sin you were prohibited from doing?? Well, I found a way though…I started doodling at the back of our bed, the side of the fridge not visible to my mom, and on the last page of my dad’s files. It wasn’t until packing day that my parents realized that they had a sly imp living with them! One of my friends always says that he invariably makes it a point to execute that deed that he’s begged to not do. Tell a child not to put down that glass vase cos it will break and give him a dire threat, and you’ll at once see a twinkle in his eyes and he’ll make sure that it shatters into a million dazzling pieces in front of your horrified face. Well the child is not evil, he just loves the pleasure of seeing something created……he cant create a glass vase at 3 (he realizes that), but he can always create a mess; a million sparkling pieces of glass is according to him a new creation or ‘evolution’ of that drab vase, which his mom used to love, when he was supposed to be the only one there to be loved. How many of u guys have been obedient sons in listening to your dad in coming home early? Although the punishment is severe you’ve always found a way out to smuggle into the house and out of the house, thanks to darling mama’s help.


My point is, do corporal and brutal punishments serve their purpose of getting the ethics into our head? Copying during exams is considered a major ‘crime’, and severe punishments are meted out. But then why do I still find the guy sitting next to me, turn a complete 180 degrees to mime out the answer to his friend, when the invigilator turns her back? If bits are out, a new style comes in; make noises with ur bootstrap…the number of times the velcro is stripped out indicates the question no., a small dull ripping sound, indicates “sorry buddy have no clue.”, a nice enthusiastic rip, kinda like a roar means “yup! I know that……”, and several more that I couldn’t spare time to gauge.


I know what u’re thinking...doodling or breaking a vase isn’t a crime. We’re dealing with hard core rapists and murderers. All the same we are dealing with people whose minds work just as bizarre…only differing in magnitude. America seems to be Laden’s glass vase that’s all. Its weird to be wagging a lethal injection, or swinging a threatening sword to warn people from indulging in what the ‘society’ calls as a crime. In one culture, it’s a moral privilege for a man to have more than 1 wife, yet in other cultures it’s a mortal sin. In Saudi, a dad has the right to execute his daughter or cut off her arm, if the tip of her hand is accidentally shown. So what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’?? We are humans...not animals to be exterminated when considered pests.


Every time a brutal punishment is meted out to us, God knows how we cringe and crib inside with the injustice of it all, the atrocity and the humiliation that we swear passionately to make the scores even...but if u’re dead, u don’t have a chance. So now that’s the whole point isn’t it? remember the time u got spanked and humiliated...can u remember feeling that hate, anger, bitter resentment(at being caught……) and most of all that feeling of being so helpless in the midst of savage people who know nothing abt fair play. From the time we got our first black mark for coming late to school to this day when our internals zoom down, we never seem to realize where we’re going wrong. Have these punishments served their purpose? Its always considered the height of cruelty and injustice when u’re suspended from college for punching another guy’s nose to a pulp, because the child inside u is whining, "u don’t know the whole story, u don’t know who started the fight, u don’t know why I hit him, u don’t know he hit me first, u don’t know that he provoked me, u don’t know that I’m not a heartless guy to rip another fellow’s nose…!”. There u go u have a reason, and u didn’t do it in the heat of the moment, and had actually planned and called for a fight at the back alleys to settle things out -man-to-man.


If we can get so passionate and if we can so virulently support our cause, over a simple college fight, why cant we extrapolate this to more serious matters and more passionate people. I’m in no way trying to justify crimes……not at all. Ask yourself whether u’ve ever felt justified at being punished, brutally. When did u finally realize that its wrong to hurt people physically?


a) when your mom had a heart-to-heart talk with u
b) when your dad yelled his head off abusing u unfairly
c) when your teacher caned u with that mean stick


Conclusion:


I understand that things have gone far out of our reach to actually mend in a more rational way. I know capital punishment in India is not meted out with a snap of one’s fingers, thanks to our judiciary. I realize that it does solve the purpose of curbing a country’s crime rate, but our Vedas state “Saama…Dhaana…bedha…dandam”, escalating towards brutal punishments as a final resort. The essence of punishments always is towards reformation of the individual, and not to seek out revenge or to brutally afflict physical pain that is only going to madly fuel his already insane passion and anger. I’m therefore strictly against mutilation. With capital punishment, a rapist or a hard core terrorist dies with the helpless thought that he cant get even with this cruel world, not a whit of remorse for having killed any innocent person, as a matter of fact he would love to stab his executor…if only he wasn't tied up.


Sadly, that is the plight of our present crisis; no time to reform, no time to realize abt ethics of punishments. So call out those docs and let them poke out as many terrorists as they can snare. God knows that the doc is no paragon of virtues himself, but aint he clever enough to not get caught?? That’s all that matters. Sorry if I’m sardonic, but my heart can never accept the concept of a fellow human being killed, in the name of punishment. It can be argued as the need of the moment, but call it termination, please do not word it as a ‘punishment’. Punishments must have a post-period…a period of realization.


Punishment is to make a man realize his deeds and it thus hopes to reform him. If we are too busy for all that, terminate him…but don’t call it punishment, for the man no longer lives to realize that.
************************************************************************************


And now, 5 years later - "America seems to be Laden's glass vase", whatever did I mean by that?! That's such a hilarious statement. The essay above had little to do with capital punishments and more to do with the topic of "corporal punishments - their ethics", or "reforming kids in school". Or maybe not even that. Notice how I've eluded from giving a solution - I've argued against brutal punishments, but offered no solution except "reformation "- just by showing compassion and treating terrorists through counseling or psychotherapy. I seriously thought it would be that easy to reform criminals? I compare college kids to criminals and argue they are same in principle and a little different in magnitude... religious fundamentalists versus silly teenagers?!! Thank god I rambled in an electronic media unaware of all the sneering and swearing and rotten vegetables spewed on me.


I no longer can find enough energy or words to argue or say anything on capital punishments. With my throat and mind resembling a parched well, I can't even find enough words, or reason to make a loved one merely glimpse at my side of the coin. Reformation of hardened fundamentalists by banking on implicit human goodness? Not going to happen. Long term solutions - plenty to speculate, but not enough fire to voice them. I resign to change the term to "termination" and make peace with it (ah, the oxymoron and irony). Either they live and wreak havoc for us, or they die and we are guilty of not resorting to more "humane" forms of reformation for their inhuman heinous crimes.

The Generous ATM

John received quite a pleasant surprise at the ATM last evening. He had punched in $100 to be withdrawn and instead saw stacks of notes pouring out of the ATM. Aghast he collected all the notes and counted them to a staggering $10,000! He peered at the receipt from the ATM and the receipt mentioned an innocent $100 off his account. With the notes stacked neatly, he looked around and saw nobody in the vicinity. He put the notes in his bag and walked away trying to think coherently on what he needed to do. He put the money at home and waited for a few weeks, expecting the bank to call him and get back the money. Weeks flew and John was still buried in doubt as to what he should do with the money. Part of him wanted to go to the bank and tell them of the mistake... but then would it be so wrong if he used it on himself? After all he didn't steal the money, he didn't rob the back... it was given to him! And such a small amount was a drop in the ocean for the bank, but for him it meant a decent home, a decent car, probably a good vacation...things he truly deserved in life and lady luck was kind enough to offer them at last. He thus continued his rationalization... (Source: The Pig that wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)


This just seems like an open-shut case! Little kids in kindergarten would tell us what the moral of this story ought to be... honesty. Yet, it is somehow not surprising that many a times we don't adhere so strongly to honesty or morality and we tend to rationalize our qualms with reasons justifying our needs. What if John had received $150 instead of $10,000? That doesn't sound so big a crime... it's probably a hassle to spend $20 to get to the bank to handover the extra $50; $50 is merely one week's worth of grocery, can't the bank afford so much?! Even $10,000 would just be a small trickle in the ocean for the bank (not in today's economy though...). So can we draw a line on the intensity of the crime/greed/dishonesty?


What if John had an ailing parent at the hospital (the classic morality check the hero goes through in cinemas), and he didn't have enough money to save them? What if John himself needed the money for curing some ailment of his? What if he needed the money for dire needs - paying the rent, buying groceries for him and his children? Bring to mind Will Smith, from The Pursuit of Happiness.... having spent a night at a public restroom with his son, wouldn't you beg him to just take the money if he found such an ATM? So can the needs justify the action?


What would I do? If I were in dire need of money, I'm sure to be caught in a dilemma - my survival weighed against plain morality/honesty. But if I rationalized to keep the money, however much it justifies the need, it is a theft nonetheless. Honesty is perhaps the most difficult tenets of morality. Our bias to self-interest plays in heavily in the context of honest/moral decisions and it's a constant struggle to figure out how to do the right thing while still being in the survival race of the fittest, in this large hostile world.

When no one wins

This chapter is along the lines of a horrific Holocaust story that always leaves me with the utter shock at how humans could ever be so cold-hearted.


Private Sacks had been ordered to rape and kill a prisoner whom he knew was a perfectly innocent civilian who happened to be from the wrong ethnic background. He knew what he was ordered to do was entirely cruel and immoral. But he thought of the situation again and surmised that if he didn't execute the orders, not only will he be killed, but the prisoner will also be invariably put through the torture by someone else. If it were him, he would at least make sure the prisoner faces a "bearable" amount of abuse and be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible, rather than be cruelly tortured by another agent. He reasoned this would be the best course of action given the circumstance. Is he justified? Can this mean that sometimes it is inevitable for even the best course of action to be grossly immoral?


This situation echoes the use of the Utilitarian principle again. If Sacks decided to preserve his integrity, he loses his life and the prisoner gets killed and abused, probably more violently. So there is no "win" here. If Sacks went ahead with the order, he saves his life and is more "considerate" in ensuring a far less painful and violent, albeit inevitable death to the prisoner. This seems to ensure "greater good". But it is still immoral beyond doubt. Or is it? If Sacks goes ahead with it, how will he face such a guilt, how will his conscience punish him for the rest of his life?


For the purpose of not circumventing the severity of such a situation, we will assume that Sacks is not as adept as Batman or James Bond to try and do something miraculous to save the prisoner and himself.


All of us face similar dilemmas (similar in principle but not in magnitude). There are often crossroads when we're torn between which road to take, knowing that either one will end up hurting someone, or yourself. It's common for us to consider ourselves first and go ahead with a choice that leaves us searching for ways to assuage our guilt, and we end up justifying our ends through the means...probably how Sacks tries to convince himself of providing a painless death to the prisoner, to save his own life.


But when we do take the road of self-sacrifice in an attempt to do the moral thing, it still results in consequences that are dire. If Sacks decides to take the bullet and honor his integrity, in what way is he helping the prisoner? Does he then resign to his fate and that of the prisoner? Is it better to resign ourselves to the uncontrollable forces of fate than commit an immoral act?


Obviously there is no solution or right answer. But I know that people like Sacks are much needed in the world. If he remained alive, he could probably help in preventing more such crimes because of his heart and head being in the right places. There are surely many more prisoners and innocent people whose fates could be altered, if a genuine agent were still alive. If Sacks is confident of saving the lives of at least two other innocent people in his lifetime, then for that reason alone he is justified to stay alive to commit his crime. If he knows he can't help the other prisoners anymore than what he can with the current, then he has no option but to resign, and at least save his integrity.