Morally Lucky

Joan’s husband Paul decided to leave her and the kids to realize his inner-self. Since he made the “brave” decision of “following his muse” and not remaining entrapped in the mechanics of worldly life, he expected his wife to take him back with open arms when he realized his pursuit led him nowhere. Joan asks, “You want to come back into our lives. But how can we do that when you are not even ready to acknowledge that you were in the wrong when you left us?”. Paul confidently says, “In my heart I know I wasn’t wrong. I followed my calling. You have praised great souls who renounced their family to achieve a greater purpose, haven’t you?”. To this, Joan retorts, “But you are not a great soul. You came back because you didn’t have it in you to realize what they could.” 
“But none of them would have become great had they not taken the first bold step. I wasn’t aware that I would fail. What matters is that I tried. Would my action be morally acceptable had I succeeded? Am I called a betrayer only because I failed?”
Is Paul’s decision morally acceptable? Or does luck play a role in differentiating right from wrong when one takes a chance?
(Original Source: The eponymous essay from Moral Luck by Bernard Williams (Cambridge University Press, 1981)

I have pretty strong opinions on situations like the one described. I have seen families being neglected by flighty, eccentric husbands who take impulsive, idealistic decisions to serve themselves. There was one man who used to spend his time and meager savings on religious rituals, bhajans and the like, while his family used to struggle to make ends meet. When asked of his responsibility towards his family, he used to take Saint Thyagaraja’s famous words - “Rama will provide. He is the cause of everything, even this desire in me to serve Him all the time  is all His doing.” No, Rama does not provide to such families by magically dropping gold coins from the ceiling. The man is accountable for the misfortunes of his family, not Rama. Another extreme is the man/woman who orients their time and energy on higher, nobler causes such as serving humanity and people in need, not thinking twice about the welfare of their own kids or spouse

I am going to make a rather blasphemous assertion here. I’m sorry if this offends anyone. The famous Tamil poet and freedom fighter, Bharathiyar is still remembered and praised for his progressive attitude, his fierce patriotism, his spiritualism, and scholarly verses. I deeply respect him for being ahead of his times and for imparting rich, wholesome knowledge. But, I find it unacceptable that he didn’t fulfil his basic role and responsibilities as a father and provider. He followed his idealistic principles and didn’t conform to conventional work. What little he got, he is known to have freely distributed to animals and others in need, when his own family would go hungry. While many applaud him for his generosity, I can’t help but pity his poor wife. Back then, women like his wife didn’t even have the resources and means to earn a living by herself. She was completely dependent on a man who put the needs of the country before his promise and responsibility towards her; That to me, is morally wrong in a sense. The pain and anguish his wife went through is very similar to what the women in the above two examples went through.

Charity begins at home. Once we make promises and are responsible for the well-being of somebody who is dependent on that commitment, we can’t afford to forget our duty. I am not against following one’s heart, realizing deeper truths or standing to higher causes. My opinion is that it is wrong to overlook our primary duties in the pursuit of “higher” paths. Even the Hindu philosophy doesn’t talk of renunciation until the worldly/familial responsibilities are taken care of. I would be perfectly fine if the men in the above scenarios were single, or didn’t have any duties that they accepted onto themselves. Or better yet, there are always ways of leading a balanced life without vacillating between extremes of materialism and detachment. I realize that my take has tinges of the “selfish gene” theory. It’s perhaps true. The  "natural-selectionists" would argue that my instinct to perceive this situation as “wrong” or “unethical” arises because it is expected to nurture one’s own gene-pool before helping another set of genes. It's due to these instincts that serve our genes that humanity developed the concept of Morality. But we’ll leave this train of thought for now.

True to Paul’s question on whether luck/success plays a role in exonerating one’s morally dubious action, I am sure there are plenty of lesser-known, hidden “Bharathiyaars” in every town who pursue similar ideals, but are just not recognized, and are hence socially isolated and condemned for ignoring their family. Think about it. Granted, if someone really possesses the talent and innate ability, the likelihood of them being an undiscovered gem in a pile of rubble is low. But luck/chance does play a role in one’s life, doesn’t it? There are misguided idealists who attempt to rise to greatness (inwardly and outwardly), but are either not blessed with the capacity to do so, or are thrown around by fate till they sink into utter oblivion. Such unsuccessful attempts are indeed mocked at, frowned upon, and censured - specifically with the accusation of betraying, hurting and disappointing their family.

Such discrimination is definitely hypocritical to me. I think Paul’s decision to abandon his family to fulfill his muse or desire was indeed morally wrong, for he didn’t worry about breaking his promise to his wife or for overlooking his responsibility towards his children. My opinion will not falter even if he had been successful in his attempt.

One can argue that most moral actions are judged by the intention of the action and not through the consequences. The cliched example is using a knife to purposefully kill, versus using it to accidentally harm/kill someone. So although technically it wasn’t Paul’s intention to hurt or betray his family, he intended to leave them stranded, knowing that his actions will cause pain. It was an informed choice. Even if we are to consider the Utilitarian philosophy of weighing the consequences - Paul’s success will not outweigh the hurt and pain of his family, for he should have honored his commitment to his family. But then, measures of emotion and personal growth are subjective.

What do you think? Does luck/chance play a role in how morality is perceived?

Pleasure Principle

Penny had been offered two great jobs, both of which will help her finally realize her life-long dream. One job is in the island of Raritaria, which had strict laws against drinking, drugs, extra-marital/pre-marital sex, crude entertainment, junk and fast-foods. The island permitted only "higher" pleasures - such as art, classical music, gourmet food, literature and theatre. Rawitaria, on the other hand was the exact opposite - it offered nothing in the means of intellectual or "refined" pleasure, but pandered to hedonists. It had excellent restaurants with greasy, lip-smacking food, Cabernet circuits, fancy bars, discos, and liberal concessions on sex and drugs. Penny was in a quandary - she didn't know which island to choose. She enjoyed both forms of pleasures every now and then, but she was pushed by the normative attitudes of society to prefer the "higher" pleasures to the "lower" ones. She wasn't sure if Beethoven was indeed a better choice than Britney Spears. (Original Source: Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill (1863))

What gives us a greater source of happiness and satisfaction - the "lower" or the "higher" pleasures? It seems to just boil down to individual tastes and preferences, that naming one "low" and the other "high" seems unfair and pompous. So how would you name them? In your mind, is one "better" than the other? Can we objectively choose one island over the other? Utilitarianism is the moral philosophy that tries to establish the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Would one kind of pleasure cause more happiness than the other, to the greatest number of people?

This might seem like a trivial question, but I think it goes beyond just a matter of taste. In the present generation, it is sad that our recreational lives revolve around how to kill time, with as little thinking as possible. In one of the HGTV shows, a designer snobbishly critiqued a newly designed living room - "Although the design of the space is nice, there is one serious flaw - the living room does not have a TV to define it." I was as irritated as the owner - since when did a TV become a necessity to "define" a living room? What happened to good conversations or just the quiet enjoyment of the magnificent views of the ocean (which the house had). Why let our minds be numbed by the inane blaring of a TV? Such pleasures, according to me, are not necessarily "low". They are merely excessively sensory-centric, and are quite temporary in satisfying us.

Unfortunately, anything that comes with the tag of "refined-taste" is regarded as ostentatious and pretentious, way above the lay man. But appreciation of art, literature, and good music, despite requiring sensory perception, transcend the senses and appease the intellect. In effect, they offer some positive growth to our thinking in the long-run. They infuse a wholesome culture to lead our lives. If the intellect can be stimulated, there is a higher chance of a long-lasting, "permanent" satisfaction. I'm reiterating the words of great scriptures, such as the Bhagavad Gita. However, such tastes are associated with the elite and a higher social status. Therefore, the world bursts with ignorant, fastidious people, who cannot appreciate or understand any refinement, but blindly follow their herd for approval. Such charades, in superficial ways of dressing and behaving are loathsome.

While I enjoy literature, music and art, every once in a while I don't mind dumping myself on the couch, munching potato chips and staring at the TV. As a matter of fact, sometimes I need to get away from all the thinking and analysis of ragas and neravals, and just blare peppy pop songs to combat the monotony of a long drive. Sometimes mozzarella sticks are comfort food, not sushi. But then, only sometimes. But if I had to choose, which one is more important to me that I will not be able to live without?

I'm not exactly a party animal. In the long run, I can compromise on not eating cheese and potatoes fried in unhealthy ways. I can live comfortably without TV, drugs or drinks. But I will miss music of the kind that just lets me tap my feet. With music, I find no barriers, no necessity for classifications and boundaries. I can never ever concentrate on lyrics, I can only follow the melody and the rhythm, that once upon a time, even Britney Spears injected some inspiration into me. But that's probably how most people consider this whole topic...probably the distinctions between the two forms of pleasures are quite trivial by themselves. However, I can't imagine giving away literature and art to listen to Britney Spears and eat fun food every day. But that's just the way I am wired.

However, just because I picked the "classy" island, it doesn't mean I like going to fancy restaurants that insist on prim dress codes, or having stiff parties to discuss Shakespeare. I like to curl up on the couch and nod to sleep as I listen to Mozart, walk with my friends to a coffee place and discuss books, take a slow walk to enjoy Nature, engage in meaningful conversations over a jigsaw puzzle, attend plays and musicals in a plain sweater, and appreciate art from a road-side vendor for its personality and creativity. Refinement is the lens through which we see simple pleasures of life - without any pomp or snoot. In the end, it's about refining the time that we spend in the company of those who matter, not killing time by drowning ourselves in mind-numbing pursuits.

Of Hearts and Heads

Sandy was a generous woman who brimmed with kindness and compassion. Her empathy was so far reaching that her heart would immediately melt at the sight of others' discomfort, and she helped others without thinking. If someone suffered on the road and asked for money, she would hand double the request, unquestioningly. However, Maria was different. She believed in thinking before acting, and was not one to easily give way to the emotions of the heart. She greatly disapproved of Sandy's behavior, for she felt it wasn't right to be charitable without thinking of the consequences. According to Maria, if Sandy handed out money and materials to the needy, especially children, they are taught to be forever helpless and dependent. Besides, what if the money was spent on drugs and frittered away? Isn't that Sandy's fault? She, on the other hand, would put some thought into the matter and come up with an effective and practical way of helping people. Maria never felt sad, nor did she empathize with people who suffered. She worked from a sense of duty, and put as much rationality as she could in the process. According to her, she was being more morally responsible, than someone like Maria, who rashly acted on her feelings of pity. But people around Maria saw her as a cold, unfeeling person. Everyone felt closer and warmer to Sandy, and they couldn't agree with Maria's point of view. (Original Source: The Pig That Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)

Sandy is a person who listens to her heart, while Maria listens to her mind. Is one better than the other? Not really. If so, we wouldn't have evolved to have both feelings and rational thought. But, in order to be morally responsible, is feeling, or thinking, more important? Again, the answer seems to be both. But if we had to choose one over the other, due to some compulsive changes in the future of evolution, which one would it be?

One thing that comes clean is that both ladies act on good intentions. The consequences, and the means to achieve the good ends, are in question. To the practical person, Maria makes a lot more sense. At the end of the day, global issues such as poverty, cannot be eradicated if every philanthropist randomly gave out money and materials. There needs to be a plan, and a systematic effort to pool in money and effectively utilize it through long-term solutions. Such long-term solutions need to be conceived and implemented. Rational, practical thinking is of utmost importance to ensure money is well spent, and resources are managed properly, so that there is little disparity in its distribution.

But such rational thinking cannot be set into motion without the impetus of feelings such as compassion and empathy. Some people like Maria are motivated enough by their sense of duty. But to me, duty is incomplete without genuine feeling. Besides, sustaining a grueling long-term effort requires much more than just duty - there needs to some feeling of involvement.

We evolved to feel first, and then think. Our animal ancestors cultivated the sense of morality primarily through feelings of empathy to fellow members. From that instinct, we have come down several stages wherein we have a more sophisticated moral structure built on the pillars of empathy and rationality, for successful and harmonious coexistence. One cannot exist without the other. However, merely rational thoughts of helping people cannot sustain without the feeling to want to help. But a feeling of wanting to help has immense hope to be practically and logically structured, given some time. I think the essence of humanity lies in feelings of compassion and kindness. Rational thought follows those feelings. If we had to compromise, I think we would survive better with feelings of morality, than rational thought on morality. Imagine a scenario such as a sinking ship; would a plain sense of duty and rationality alone urge men to rescue others, before they tried to save themselves? Rationality would scream: save yourself, there is only 1 boat left.

In the above scenario, Sandy is surely commendable, but she has to be advised on how to effectively channelize her feelings and donations, so as to truly address core problems. While Maria is very sensible, a future of humanoids like her who are cold to suffering, but can calculate a plan of rescue, is troubling to envision.

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?

Chips of Knowledge

Tom can finally be confident. Although he was unfortunate to have not attended college, he could now confidently partake in pompous, pseudo-intellectual talk that his colleagues often engaged in. He left his colleagues open-mouthed and in disbelief at how he gained so much knowledge within a matter of few weeks. Tom was gloating, happy that he finally got his ego-boost. His new implant was working miracles. He had a high-speed wireless chip that connected to the world-wide web and a powerful in-built encyclopaedia. Due to the limitless memory and knowledge space, Tom could choose to register new information effortlessly and could retrieve relevant information using basic keywords. A "Google" inside his brain. With this immense ability, Tom stopped caring what he registered and what he retrieved, as long as he could spew out the information to impress others to get his way through life. But he didn't care that he wasn't learning or acquiring knowledge in true spirit, all that he could think of was how omniscient he had become with no effort. (Original Source: The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, by Julian Baggini)

I'm no new prophetess to argue that wisdom is different from knowledge. Knowledge talks, wisdom listens. Clearly Tom is only keen on talking and spilling out facts. Knowledge that isn't realized or experienced is vapid. Knowledge that doesn't help the individual grow from within, will soon become stale. But this scenario is not so far-fetched. It's quite plausible that within the next two generations, chips of such kind will surface. Schools and educational institutions will dwindle, given the already proliferating ideas on e-education, combined with the release of wireless chips that help one gain a limitless library of information all within one's head. Imagine knowledge chips being upgraded in toddlers as they develop, instead of school classes they progress to. What measure would be used to determine when a toddler's chip should be upgraded to newer versions? Does it matter at all? Or would everyone be given a unanimous chip of equal capabilities? Would that finally spell the meaning of being fair and equal, promising everyone equal opportunities for survival? Can someone be a good doctor just by consulting such a chip? Who decides what "knowledge" goes in the chip, and that all the information is validated and true? Would everyone be equally knowledgeable and smart? So many questions if we progress to such a realm. Such a chip cannot teach us how to apply knowledge, and when to apply which aspect appropriately. Intelligence still remains a slippery stone for scientists to hold and comprehend completely. But it sure is disconcerting if we are to enter an age wherein intelligence is confused with what people like Tom are capable of. Or with the optimism of AI scientists, maybe the chips would teach one to be "intelligent". But again, intelligence surely doesn't guarantee wisdom?

To a certain extent I appreciate the idea of technology augmenting the capabilities of the human brain, helping it overcome its limitations of memory and retrieval. But how different is a chip in the brain that helps us google, versus a hand-held device which helps us do the same thing today, with just a few clicks (or "touches"). We call it a "cognitive artifact" that helps with distributed cognition. In my field, we see technology as pieces of our mind, externalized, augmented and offloaded to be portable. So is this blog, that externalizes most of my thoughts. Haven't we then already progressed to Tom's state? We have already stepped into that smart age, although the mind is still physically disconnected from the device.

The fact that I know so many "exotic" recipes today, that my mom feels she can no longer suggest recipes to me, doesn't mean I'm smarter or more capable, but simply means I'm guided step by step through videos, pictures and precise measurements on how to make Tiramisu and souffles, when my mom had to improvise on what her grandmom taught her. Makes me wonder who the true "smart" one is. This age is designed to enable anyone to do almost anything. Despite churning out novel goodies, I still don't have the basic grasp or intuition of which spices go together with which ingredients, that my mom probably gained quite early on. She wasn't being a robot carrying out steps, she made mistakes, learned, realized her knowledge, experienced it and improvised. She had stashes of strategies and tips up her sleeves, all of which I can only google for today. I believe that this applies to even aspects that don't necessarily have an immediate, tangible practical component to them. A theory cannot be understood by merely reading or hearing about it. A book cannot be appreciated by reading its synopsis, reviews and popular quotes. Without sufficient independent thought processes applied, every iota of information just remains "raw". At a very basic neuro-scientific level, the mind cannot form any connections to new information if it is not processed. Rare are those who will persevere to gain wisdom even if knowledge is available at their finger-tips or neuron-tips.

The information loaded age needs to ensure a balance such that the meaning and import of wisdom and intelligence are not lost forever from the human race.

The Ring of Gyges

The ring of Gyges gave the power of invisibility to anyone who wore it. Simon confidently slipped the ring on and was thrilled at his disappearance. He enthusiastically walked around for a few hours testing out his new found "power". He was amused and excited at all the things he could do without being noticed. His mind slowly started tempting him to play innocent pranks on people. He tried to trip a few people, move a few objects around and laugh at the state of confusion etc. Soon his pranks seemed to be escalating and he had to stop himself and think about what he was doing. He was a little uncomfortable that he was drawn towards base temptations, such as peeking into private quarters. He tried hard to distract himself and concentrate on the good deeds he could do to put a smile on people's faces. But it was so very hard to come up with ideas for good deeds, when every second a silly prank sprang to his mind. He wasn't sure he could resist his temptations long. Would we have the strength to resist such temptations if we got hold of the ring? (Original Source: Book two of The Republic, by Plato)

This is a very interesting moral experiment. Often, conscience is attributed to our fear of being caught and punished. Many philosophers are skeptical that moral conscience can exist independent of fear of disapproval or punishment. It is an intriguing hypothesis to test with such a ring (or cloak) of invisibility. If one were invisible would their moral conscience remain the same? Probably not. It is easy to begin rationalizing every act as being harmless and innocent, although in the "visible" world we'll be stepping out of bounds of social convention and the dictates of moral behavior if we indulged in those acts. Eaves dropping, violation of privacy, purloining a few trinkets etc., will no longer seem as morally wrong, but mere privileges and harmless acts.

But it is not to say that the average person will drive himself to commit murder or rape. Or at least I can't imagine myself turning into such a person just because I have the power of invisibility. The assumption is that the core moral philosophy will remain same... or almost. Well, at least when circumstances are not too dire. I think it will be easier to convince ourselves of what is to be done when we encounter gray areas of moral dilemma, such as euthanasia. With no rules, restrictions or fear of punishments, it is easier to act on our impulsive decisions, for the consequences may not directly haunt us, beyond our conscience. It's a good personal test on our conscience. A person who finds himself drawing the line of morality quite differently from the way he currently identifies, will realize what his true underlying moral philosophy is, and where exactly his conscience stands in defining good versus bad. Anyone in a moral dilemma can imagine themselves executing an act when they are invisible and gauging how comfortable their conscience would be at that point. It will also help us isolate social conventions/restrictions from the true meaning of morality. Our underlying nature, personality and the values we truly believe in will come to surface.

It is also interesting that it's much harder to think of good deeds to perform when all that one can think of is suppressing base temptations, or yielding to silly, rationalized behavior to express freedom. But I will be optimistic - once we get over the urge to burst out and revel in our new-found precious freedom, I have hope that most of us will eventually consider doing "good" :)

The Papadam Paradox

Linda was enjoying her lunch at the new Indian restaurant which recently opened up in the busiest section of downtown. She relished the warm spicy food after that long walk down China Town. But her bliss was rudely disrupted when a waiter flashed a plate full of crispy golden discs, courteously asking,  "More papadum, ma'm?" She shook her head and was puzzled at why that bothered her. Then she knew - her model of an Indian restaurant contained Indians serving their traditional food, not white men like the waiter. There was a reason why she loved being a multiculturalist. She wanted to enjoy, visit and be part of every culture, in its true ethnic, authentic form. It ruins that cultural experience if she were to realize that the curry was being prepared by an Italian chef and the place was owned by Americans. Doesn't matter if the food tasted authentic. She no longer felt being part of a culture. But this would mean that every culture should stay pristine and isolated, while multiculturalists like her continue appreciating and experiencing diverse and exotic cultures. But such a distinct cultural diversity seems like a paradox to the meaning of multiculturalism, doesn't it? (Original Source: The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, Julian Baggini)

In this era of intermingling cultures, this paradox is common to all of us. India is proud to call herself a nation of diverse cultures and traditions, exemplifying the meaning of unity in diversity. However, respect and tolerance for other cultures is not the same as being ready to appreciate and be part of another culture. Multiculturalism is a notch higher. It is exhibited when people start to imbibe and embody aspects of other cultures. In my definition, it is cherry-picking some interesting, significant or meaningful values, traditions and practices of multiple cultures and living one's life by them. But when multiculturalism percolates wide and deep, soon there will no longer be distinct cultures to experience or "pick" from. What might remain is a morphed amalgamation of multiple cultures, with the roots fading into oblivion. But unlike Linda, this consequence, of losing the authentic forms doesn't bother me. I don't believe that any culture has one distinct authentic form. Every culture has evolved, is evolving and continues to evolve. With very generation, there is a gradation. But thanks to history, mythology and scriptures, we can still manage to trace our way back to the original roots, as arduous and obfuscating as the journey may be. We try to figure out the original meaning and significance behind every present tradition and end up with unresolved questions and debates. But it doesn't justify or make sense to try and preserve the current definitions of one's culture. The evolution of human society and its culture are inevitable. Besides, it is unrealistic for the entire world to morph into one homogeneous culture. There will always continue to be variations of the present and past mishmashed cultures, and the future multiculturalists can wade their way through those variations. Isn't it how we function today, with Indo-Chinese food and American Pizzas?

The other question is - in what ways do a multiculturalist truly appreciate other cultures? Appreciating and adapting to dietary habits, purchasing ethnic art and materials, wearing exotic clothes, having a good time celebrating fun and interesting occasions? What is the point if such superficial elements are emulated? How does it matter if one doesn't resonate with the deeper meanings, symbolisms and principles behind the food, the clothes, the art and the celebrations? But this seems to be our current trend - selectively following superficial aspects of a culture without any integrity to its significance or to one's principles. This is not multiculturalism. It is a serious problem of identity crisis, mostly just a shoddy external pretension, a pompous act to call oneself an elite multiculturalist.

A true multiculturalist transcends cultural, material and religious boundaries, seeking to genuinely learn, appreciate, imbibe and practice those values that resonate with the inner self. 

Significantly Tiny

Ian's ambition was to build the Total Perspective Vortex. The machine was once an artifact of science fiction, but Ian had toiled to make it a reality. Whoever entered into the vortex could see their true place in the Universe. In science fiction, this piece of truth was so debilitating to humans who realized that their existence was so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, that it crushed their very soul. But Ian being an intelligent scientist, had tweaked the machine such that everyone would see the same thing, reasoning that all of us human mortals are insignificant to the approximate degree. He was also convincing himself that contrary to the science fiction, he would be strong enough to face the truth and not let it crush his soul. Yet, as he stood in front of it to test it out, his trepidations started gnawing him again. Would he be able to face such a shattering truth, even he, who was intelligent enough to build such a powerful and perceptive machine? (Original Source: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, by Douglas Adams)

Those familiar with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" must be able to identify this machine, and the courageous character who survived this machine, claiming that he was shown to be a "terrific and great guy". We can always interpret his response in two ways - he was either quite strong to face the truth, or his ego was so bloated and his perception of truth scaled in proportion to the Universe, that he was happy that he could place himself, however infinitesimally, in the huge Universe, whereas a little ant could have probably not even found his tiny dot.

The most interesting question here is - How significant should something be, for it to be significant. When I write down significance so many times, the first thing that I am reminded of is statistical significance. A man-made cut off of 0.05 is really more arbitrary than statisticians would want us to believe. Although, I now have a genial Advanced Statistics Prof, who laughs off saying he no longer believes in empiricism and experiments, for even if your experiments yield nice p values, there is something called as Type 1 Error, according to which 5 % of all published experiments could be false. An extreme view, one might think. But there is a lot of truth to it. We are all aware of how easy it is to toss away the results of a Control as being insignificant when it inches to 0.06, and how we celebrate the results of the Treatment that just about stops at 0.051. Papers are still written and accepted with such marginal significance and insignificance, and hypotheses and speculations fly high. Ah, there is replication validity, some might say. But how many complex experiments are replicated? And how many "simple" experiments are replicated more than a 100 times to catch those stray 5 false positives. Truth is arbitrary, and it is manipulated by significance.

The next interesting question is - Why would a man be so crushed to see the truth of his insignificance? Our lives propel due to us attributing meaning, purpose and significance to everything that happens to us. If someone were to tell a toiling student that his efforts, his aim for success and his life are tinier than a piece of grain in the grand scheme of things, he would lose his mind and his sense of identity. It's crippling to face the truth that our lives are meaningless and our pains and angst are worth a naught. If motivation, purpose and meaning are removed from our lives, it becomes nothing. Existentialists argue that we need to therefore create meaning and purpose for ourselves to combat this feeling of lack of purpose. Associating causality is part of human nature, else he wouldn't have survived.

So the next pivotal question is - How significant should our lives be, for us to find purpose and meaning? If significance is arbitrary and subjective, it follows that it has its own scale of measurement. A doctor who witnesses a woman in labor finds hardly any significance to the whole episode. But to the woman, it is one of the most significant moments of her life. The scale of such qualitative impressions are markedly different from person to person. If one were to step into the machine and see that his life is as big as the tiniest meteor in the galaxy, it still doesn't say anything! Size can be no valid scale! We have teeny tiny deadly viruses who can significantly wipe out human existence! If we believe that every little speck of dust on the Universe plays its role in the shaping of the Universe, then each of us have our own tiny significance. And that's exactly what Beeblebrox from the science fiction, perceives. Our minuscule significance is notable, considering our limitations and the expanse of the Universe.

At this point, there are serious questions on whether such a machine can even be built. What can it be its measurements to come up with the value of significance. Significance is a proportion, something that can exist only in comparison to something else. A virus's significance to Earth may be very high, but its significance to other planets may be very low.

But the aim of the Total Perspective Vortex is to instill a sense of humility in all of us. It helps us reevaluate our values, our priorities and the way we conduct ourselves in relation to others in the Universe. Even though what matters is each of our perceptions of significance and meaning, it is a worthy exercise to be made aware that everything and everyone around us are equally significant in their own little ways. Every time we feel the burden of our life weighing on our shoulders, it helps to reflect on our real place in the grand scheme of things.

The Green Conundrum

The Greens faced a predicament. Their country farmhouse served as their home and as their business quarters. While their business was generating a good revenue, the heavy machines used on the site were causing serious damage to the foundation of the farmhouse, threatening to bring down the house in about five years. Unfortunately the profit reaped from the business wasn't sufficient to help the Greens find a new place or remedy the structural damages to the house. But the Greens were firm on preserving the house for their posterity and so slowed down the production machinery, thus decreasing their revenue. A decade later, when Mr. and Mrs. Greens had passed on, their children inherited the farmhouse which was in a state of near dilapidation. The children grimly realized that it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate the house. But the irony was, since the Greens had slowed down production and slimmed down their profits, the children hadn't inherited enough money to take care of the damages. If the Greens had indeed carried on production, not being so concerned with the short-term consequences, they might have left enough money for the children to resurrect the house. What went wrong with the Greens' intention to save the house? How did their concern and consideration turn impractical and result in the house being irrevocably damaged? (Original Source: The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg)

This is an analogy on the current debate on environmental conservation and protection. Obviously the Greens did not make a practical and rational decision when they cut down on their profits while not taking any steps to remedy the house, or find a new place. Their decision was not just short-sighted but their priorities were mismatched, and they were not proactive enough to find a solution to the problem. They just seemed to delay the inevitable and deemed it as the best "solution". But when we draw parallels between this scenario to our problem of a world being depleted of environmental resources, and damaged due to our plundering, our option to consider relocating to another "home" is not as simple. While great minds like Stephen Hawking have been stressing on such endeavors, there are far too many challenges involved. With the effects of environment abuse unveiling itself and intensifying with every passing year, we seem to have an even more pressing need to find a "solution" to mitigate the damages early.

The skepticism in the excerpt is - if our industrialization and production is cut down to an unrealistic scale in an attempt to restrict the damage, it isn't a solution. It merely prolongs an inevitable disaster. Wouldn't it be better to be equipped with the technology and economic means to deal with the problem when it strikes, rather than not have the means to deal with the problem, with merely the consolation that it manifested a few years later? Theoretically, the argument seems to be logical. But finding a place/planet that is conducive to human habitation is far more complex than just involving money or technological growth. We don't have the liberty that the Greens had in being assured that there would always be another home, however modest in comparison to the existing home, that will help them survive. It doesn't sound logical to continue amassing profit and technology when none of them are assured of helping us find a solution. Until such a time, it makes sense to be overly cautious to conserve and preserve our planet. And it seems mind-bogglingly shocking to me that we can be so complacent about restarting or simulating our complex ecosystem in another planet - down to the life sustaining microbes. We have absolutely no idea if we humans can indeed survive in a different ecosystem. What makes us take this current planet for granted - a result of billions of years of meticulous and intricate evolution.

Besides, without even going into the specifics of the Kyoto protocol or the recent Copenhagen Summit, or the many controversies circling around claiming that Global warming is an unproven scientific falsity, I stress that it is every individual's social responsibility to treat their home with consideration. It doesn't seem unrealistic to me to insist that we don't litter our own home and not pay heed to many of our inconsiderate behaviors which can be rectified with simple steps. Monitoring the callous ways in which I was living, I was shocked that I spent so many plastic water bottles, containers and money only because I was forgetful or lazy to carry water and reuse a bottles. This in fact reduces my cost of buying plastic, which forms a significant component of trash, even per person. Similarly, how is at an increase in cost if I put in more effort to not use the drier and use a clothes line, at least during summer? Not using the drier for three whole months was a tremendous conservation of electricity and it brought down my bill significantly. Never before have I noticed how many plastic cups, plates and cutlery get trashed every time there is a small get-together amongst friends. A fun weekend dinner does not require so much waste. If we looked beyond the short-term discomfort of washing dishes (which anyway get dumped into a dishwasher or handed over to a domestic help), it is an economical benefit for us. Of course, using the dishwasher is also incurring excessive water wastage, but if one has to trade off their options due to practical challenges in dealing with our time pressured lives, then a thoughtful trade off is better than indulging in thoughtless and inconsiderate behavior. For months now, my dear friend has been tirelessly campaigning about waste-management, which will also promise a good organic garden. But the lukewarm responses suggest that people would rather invest a lot of money in buying fertilizer sacks than deal with collecting waste and popping in earthworms, which hardly require much effort (aside the ickiness associated with earthworms ;)). Such inertia to put in some labor and effort is what is saddening. Similarly, if one were to take account of the number of pages of paper that get printed out per useless meeting, per office/school, when everything is electronic, and if we were to notice how carelessly they get strewn in every other bin except the recycle bin, such carelessness is appalling. Contrary to the excerpt's claim, many of our compromises involve effort and consideration - not money and impediment of growth. If we looked beyond comfort, we can do much more.

Conservation of resources is a good practice regardless of any selfish motives. One doesn't have to go on crazy marine expeditions to stop whale hunting to demonstrate their commitment to preserving the ecosystem and the environment. There are plenty of little things we can do, each in our own seemingly little ways, to be considerate to our habitat. Paying attention to what we throw in the trash and how we use natural resources will surely provide ample opportunities to remedy our ways. It doesn't necessitate frugal living, as is commonly misunderstood. It only requires living thoughtfully in communion with Nature, showing her the consideration she deserves. But these steps alone are not going to be enough, and investment in research to explore other habitable planets is surely a long-term practical solution, which I don't think will be hampered due to us being minimal in our use of non-biodegradable substances.

The Language of Thoughts

Professor Lapin and his assistant were quite excited about their current research that involved developing a lexicon for a previously unheard and unknown language. The first identified word in the newly found tribal language was "gavagai". They heard this word being used whenever a rabbit was present, so Lapin was ready to associate the meaning of the word "gavagai" to rabbit. But his assistant intervened by pointing out a possible confound. For all they knew, "gavagai" could mean "hey look! Rabbit!", or "a single rabbit" etc. It could also be embedded with some other cultural or physical adjectives that they were unaware of. In order to thoroughly establish the validity of the word and meaning, Lapin and his assistant need to not just make more observations, but essentially live long enough with the tribe to get a grounding of their culture, so that they understood the ties it has with the formation of words and the language. Is it true that one needs to understand culture to comprehend its language? Is there any way by which the "truth" of the words can be objectively ascertained? Does truth become subjective to language? (Original Source: Word and Object, by W.V.O. Quine (MIT Press, 1960))

I can very well see through the challenges that emerge from a research standpoint. I have no idea how linguists work, but I'm certain that the standards for establishing validity are same across all disciplines. There are two parts to this excerpt - one deals with the effect of culture on the evolution of language, and the second deals with how language by itself can afford how we form concepts and thoughts and can thus influence the way people think and behave, therefore affecting how the culture evolves. It's sort of like a symbiotic feedback loop - culture->language ->thoughts->concepts->culture. Since culture is on either sides, envisage a circle instead of my linear diagram.

Those of us who know at least a couple of languages (or better yet polyglots), will be well aware that each language has its own set of unique words and grammar rules than cannot be translated to other languages. Many friends of mine have raved about books in a certain language that can never be translated into other languages without losing some of their truest literary beauty and form. I've even struggled to explain the meaning of certain very common words in my mother-tongue to another person from the very same country and culture, but from a neighboring state. This is because each language is heavily based on metaphors that are relevant to the nuances of a culture. Such is the confluence of culture, traditions and the physical nature of our environment, found in our languages. A popular example is how the Eskimos have a large array of words differentiating the various types of snow. Due to their climatic conditions, these people were in need of forming different words in their language to specifically relate to the subtle gradations and kinds of snow. In South-India, there is no word for snow, except of course if we are to adopt the English word into our vocabulary. Or our leaders would be kind enough to expend their time in inventing authentic and convoluted words from the root of the language.

Consequently, it is also true that our concepts and thoughts concerning the word "snow" will be constrained because of the language. If we don't have words to define and conceptualize different kinds of snow, our knowledge/truth about snow is also limited. Similarly, our abilities to express ourselves and communicate meaning among others are also dictated by the rules and structures afforded by the language. The more poorly designed the language, the harder it is for us to think in terms of the language, the lesser concepts we can frame, the more time it takes to express, the greater the complexity of the expression, and less information or misinformation gets communicated, thus jeopardizing meaning and truth. Another favorite example of mine is that of computer programming languages (despite them being arguably different from natural languages). But a programmer will largely agree that the rules of a programming language can either constrain or expand their abilities to not just program efficiently, but also afford unique thought processes for problem solving and expression. With dynamically typed programs and object-oriented programs, the consensus is that these languages provide more scope and freedom for solving problems and expressing the solutions more effectively. In effect, they allow us to conceptualize and think differently.

This notion, that language structure affects the way we think and form cognitive concepts, is called the Whorfian-Hypothesis. Science is a little divided on this hypothesis. While many (including me) agree that there is some truth to it, it doesn't extend completely to all cognitive concepts or processes. There have been many scientific studies disproving this hypothesis. A popular experiment proved that a culture in which people have no linguistic representation of any color except black and white, still formed cognitive concepts of the primary colors "blue", "red" etc, such that they could arrange the secondary colors around them. Some argue that this is merely perception, rather than conception, but there are many more studies that have attempted to disprove it.

Therefore to a large extent we think in terms of our language, and our cognitive boundaries are sort of determined by the scope of our language structure. But as evidenced in the current generation, the use of SMS-English has led to additions and abbreviations of "words" to our daily vocabulary, such as "lol", that even the structure of the language seems to slowly change. This is due to the technological instant-messaging culture. Hence language is sure to correspondingly evolve. It leads to an interesting question of how this change in language will affect the thought processes of the future generations.

Finally, does all of this relativity with language and culture imply that the expression of meaning will be affected? Two people speaking the exact same language are prone to multiple misunderstandings. Given that, is it plausible that the "truth" remains relative to every language, for we cannot completely express and translate the meaning and embedded context, however expressive we try to be? To a certain extent, yes; which is probably why we resort to Logic, Mathematics and equations to be more objective about what we want to convey. But the field of Logic has its own can of worms, so I'm not going there :).

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.

Evil Genius

All critics were floored by the cinematography, the acting, screenplay, and the original score of the movie... all these elements were so brilliantly rendered. But they also had to concede that the movie was morally repulsive. It presented a worldview that one race was the most superior, and that the members had the right to deride and mistreat humanity. Cruelty to the old was shown as necessary, and childless women were justified to be abused by men. Despite the movie perpetuating such horrendous injustices, some critics argued that it was a great work of art from the perspective of technological artistic rendition. Such innovative, praiseworthy techniques were employed that they felt that the movie should be released from a cinematic art standpoint. However to many, the message that the movie conveyed couldn't be separated from the medium through which it was conveyed, that they couldn't appreciate one aspect while utterly loathing many other aspects. Should the movie be exempted from being banned purely due to its artistic merits? Are the art enthusiasts right in citing freedom of expression of art? (Original Source: "The Pig that wants to be Eaten", Julian Baggini)

I have been mulling over this for the last few days, trying quite hard to step away from the apparent, nagging practicality of the issue. My greatest difficulty (as faced by the critics in the excerpt) is to tease apart the medium and the message. To me, it just doesn't make sense to call something a work of art unless both the concept and the technique come together holistically. The greatest artists of our times are lauded for not merely their technical merit... if so, there are tens of thousands of art students in accomplished universities who are flawless in their technical adroitness; artistic genius comes together through conception, and rendition of a concept that is clothed with technical brilliance.

However, on my recent pondering, I was reminded of a particular challenge in Food Network's Challenge series. The competition was to design and put together a crystallized sugar display that artistically depicted the theme of a literary classic. I love watching such challenges, and this particular competition really piqued my interest. However the results were a little disappointing to me. This is probably the only instance when I could differentiate the technical and artistic components from the theme/concept depicted. Of the 4 groups, there was one team whose display exhibited expert technical skills and was visually very aesthetic; however their depiction of the book's theme was not up to mark, and in fact I couldn't find much correlation in their design to the actual story of the classic... but the piece by itself was a beautiful abstract piece of art. On the other hand, there was another team whose depiction of the classic was expertly done, but they lacked in technical expertise and their piece did not come together with much visual appeal. The judges seemed to be in much deliberation, but finally the team with expert technical and visual representation won. I would have probably awarded another team which did reasonably well in both components, in spite of their not greatly excelling in each component.

Another example of a movie that faced a similar fate is the Hindi movie Khaagaz Ke Phool, directed by Guru Dutt. It has been documented that when the movie was initially released it was met with cold disapproval, for the concepts it explored seemed to be too revolutionary in the 1950s of Indian society. Many were deeply offended by its open exploration of "morally depraving" ideas such as infidelity. Despite its great artistic value from a technical, cinematic point of view, the movie failed to appeal. But in recent times, Guru Dutt has been posthumously acclaimed for the movie, and the movie is still hailed as a memorable work of art.

However, in contrast to Guru Dutt's movie, the one in the excerpt doesn't deal with merely revolutionary concepts that are currently hard for society to digest; neither does it offer much intellectual speculation on progressive changes in society. I doubt that in the coming hundreds of years, humanity would ever rationalize to go back on certain very basic virtues, such as treating women, elderly and the whole of humanity with respect and consideration. In all these thousands of years, humanity still abides by some very basic principles of living that have remained untouched by all our numerous societal revolutions. Putting aside the debates on artistic merits, it's obvious that the welfare and harmony of society come first. Any work of expression that vilifies human instincts in such negative ways should not be allowed to perpetuate. Such thoughts and ideas pander to extremely inhumane instincts, that the argument on freedom of expression of art is very trivial to me. And the elite art enthusiasts form such a very slim percentage that the movie is bound to reach a majority of audiences on whom the message will leave a stronger impact, than the artistic splendour. Finally, my definition of art is a representation which integrates a delicately beautiful thought in an aesthetically appealing manner; one without the other cannot be suitably called as art. I think the movie should be banned.

Evolved Promises

The Senator was surprised to see Drew, his friend from college, enter his office at so late an hour. His surprise turned to confusion when he saw Drew holding a gun. "I've come to kill you", said Drew. The senator was aghast. "Well, don't you remember. You told me several times that if you ever vote Republican, then you should be shot! Now you're a Republican Senator, so I must fulfill my promise, carry out your instruction and shoot you." "Are you out of your mind? I said that as a figure of speech twenty years ago!", cried the Senator. "Well, it was no casual remark. Here I have proof of your writing and signature, authorizing me to kill you if you turned Republican. It was also witnessed by several of our friends. Don't tell me not to take this contract seriously. If so, living wills will be meaningless. And the issues surrounding euthanasia will be made more complicated if the decision made by terminally ill patients prior to their vegetative state, cannot be executed. A contract such as this has to be binding!" (Original Source: "The Pig That Wants to be Eaten", by Julian Baggini)

Perhaps an example of following the letter of the law, instead of its spirit. But what cranked my circuit was Drew's argument pertaining to other contracts such as wills and those made by terminally ill patients. All of us progressively change or evolve with every passing year and with life's experiences. Does it then make sense for us to commit to something and make a decision for our future-selves who may probably disagree with our past judgments? Are we being unrealistic to expect people not to change their thoughts/decisions? Being aware of this dilemma, is it reasonable to provide some leeway to wriggle out of the contract, without incurring consequences such as what the Senator faces? I'm sure warning bells are ringing all over the place with such a suggestion; those with commitment related fears, and charlatans will have a ball.... there would now be a universal rule excusing betrayal. And the worst part is, every decision and promise will become evanescent if we can't hold anybody's words down to anything concrete, thus destroying the very meaning of trust and promise.

If the prospect of disrespecting contracts/promises is so unpalatable, why shouldn't the Senator be killed in this scenario? I think it all adds up to the implications of the contract. Contracts such as mortgage payments or even marriages involve at least two people being tightly wound in the ramifications of the decision. Backing out of such contracts negatively affects those with whom the contract was drawn. But in this case, the Senator's decision is personal and Drew's breach of "promise" by sparing his life, doesn't adversely affect anybody, and in fact only saves a life. Changing one's political view can probably be argued as being not so innocuous, for it can adversely affect society in the long term due to the kinds of decisions a Senator can take. But in this particular context, there are surely no such severe indications.

What about euthanasia? Can a person's decision to be taken off the ventilator if at all he goes into coma be taken seriously at a later point in the patient's condition, for this decision also involves the patient's family and friends. I think it is reasonable to make a decision for the future when we are sure that our future-self will not have adequate cognitive capacity to make an informed decision at that point. And I think it's fair to respect such a decision, however early it was made relative to the patient's condition.

Preemptive Justice

Chief Inspector Andrews had worked miracles in the city - murders were cut down by 90%, robberies were down by 80%, street crimes reduced by 85%, car thefts dwindled below 70%... surely the Inspector's strategy seemed to be so miraculously effective! His police authority was the first to advocate the new preemptive justice program. With advances in AI and computing, it was made possible to predict who would commit what sort of crime in the near future. People could be tested on the basis of any suspicion; if found as potential criminals, they were arrested and punished in advance. Maybe punished is the "wrong" word - potential criminals were made to go through psychologically intense programs designed to make sure they were reformed, and were released only if the above mentioned tests professed them as safe enough. Often the programs lasted a little less than a year. Andrews argued that if these potential criminals were neglected, the likelihood of them serving a higher sentence/punishment, in addition to disrupting peace in the community in the near future would be high. Yet, liberal organizations protested that it was morally wrong to force down such detentions on people who'd committed no crime. (Original Source: "The Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick)

It is the dream of many quantum physicists and genetic engineers to be able to predict human nature so accurately so as to benefit the progress of the entire human race - a world engulfed in peace, where children and the innocents don't suffer, where microscopic entities can no longer consume so many lives, and where we humans can finally conquer the greatest mystery that plagues us - the universe's uncertainty. This thought experiment kindles one of the many quandaries and potentially detrimental scenarios that need to be resolved if we indeed believed in having reached such a stage.

Nothing to blow us over better than numbers and statistics - hugely impressive numbers such as 90% reduction in murder is enough to convince most authorities frustrated with prior futile strategies, to immediately jump at implementing the program. The program also comes sugar-coated with reassurances that it's for the benefit of both the entire community as well as the individual, and that the reformative programs are not really "punishments". After all, isn't a reckless driver made to go through special driving seminars, even though he didn't technically commit any crime? No, doubt the justice program does sound reasonable, enticing and oh so ideal - algorithms that can accurately predict human nature, psychological programs that can guarantee reformation of the individual, and a crime-free world of peace.

Of course, some obvious questions of concern would be - 1) The extent of accuracy of these algorithms - it's hard to imagine 100% accurate binary outputs from these algorithms - For one, such outputs reduce us humans into automatons with no free-will (which is a hairy topic by itself). Further, I'm skeptical if we can ever reach a stage wherein we can so strongly draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Assuming that the output is a probabilistic estimate, how does one decide the sensitivity threshold of this estimate to determine a potential criminal?
2) What is the definition of "crime" fed into the algorithm - with the concept of morality continually evolving, will the definition of crimes be dictated by current legal specifications, or through ambiguous definitions as defined by the society?
3) What inputs get fed into the algorithm to extract this decision - the person's genes? Genome code? Brain chemistry? Environmental conditions? Nurture? Past and current behavior? Medical reports? After having recently read a book on Genomes, my take-away point was that all of the above said factors can interact in unpredictably complicated ways to determine our biological and behavioral responses. And those who are well versed in theories of physics are aware of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Laplace, and black holes. Tying with question 1, the accuracy and reliability of such predictive algorithms suffer a serious threat.

Besides, all human beings have their shades of good and bad; it is highly likely for almost all citizens of a state to be classified as a potential criminal at some circumstance/phase. From a practical standpoint, I would think it's more of a resource sink if such an extreme cautionary program is enacted.

If we hypothetically assumed that all these mysteries were solved and there did exist a foolproof algorithm with exceptionally sensitive accuracy, and there were new generations of moral philosophers who had laid down precise rules to define crimes, would this preemptive justice program be conceptually acceptable? To me, it's an irony that the human race would STILL need such a dramatic justice program despite evolving to a state of supreme intelligence wherein we could answer all of the Universe's secrets on uncertainty and resolve debates on good versus evil. If we lived in a generation that was filled with such people wiser than Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Dawkins and other such geniuses, why should the community continue to require such mandatory crime reduction programs? If evolution of our rationality cannot seem to put our human race on the path to distinguish between good and bad, and to cohabitate peacefully, especially when there are explicit algorithms to inform us, then there seems to be no hope for our race!

Accepting this program is succumbing to the notion that we are all animals completely controlled and determined by forces beyond our rationality and will. It totally obliterates any little hope we rest on our free-will. Given these extremely disconcerting implications, this program doesn't sound right to me.

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.

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.

Drawing The Line On Promises

Hew, Drew, Lou and Sue all promised their mother they would regularly write during their trips. Hew wrote his letters, but gave them to other people to post, none of whom bothered. So his mother received no letters from him. Drew wrote her letters and posted them herself, but she carelessly put them in disused boxes and attached far too few stamps, which meant none of the letters reached her mom. Lou wrote and posted her letters properly but the postal system let her down every time. Mother didn't hear from her. Sue wrote and posted her letters properly and also made brief phone calls to check if they had arrived. Alas, none did. Did any of the children keep their promise to their mom? (Source: The moral philosophy of H.A. Pichard, as critiqued by Mary Warnock in, "What Philosophers Think", edited by J. Baggini and J. Stangroom)

How much moral responsibility should one take to ensure that their duties/promises are fulfilled? What is the interaction between the agents, actions and their consequences in deciding the moral philosophy of executing a duty?

From the excerpt, it feels like Sue was the only child who gave her best in trying to fulfill her promise. The rest somehow, did not put in their best efforts. But in our everyday world, Sue would be called a paranoid person, a stickler, a perfectionist, whose actions are probably unrealistic to be executed for every given situation. Most of us would probably fall under the category of Lou. We all have our duties, our promises, but how much is really good enough?

To me, a duty remains just a drudged monotony, until the heart is involved. When there is sufficient desire stemming out of passion, care and interest, the effort that is expended is much different, much higher. Ideally, that's how most promises must be viewed. This is not to say that Sue was the only caring child. It is the extent of importance weighed on those particular letters to the mother - Sue attached the greatest importance to them. But I don't necessarily translate this to a proportionate extent of love or affection.

Yet, even Sue's letters didn't reach. Didn't she also fail? This is where the role of consequences come into play. Not all situations and actions can be purely evaluated by their consequences. Surely what matters is the thought, the intentions and the amount of effort, and type of action that go into it. I do attribute the journey to be more valuable than the destination itself. Yet, consequences cannot be always ignored. The severity of the circumstance surely plays a role. If the childrens' duty was to make sure their mother was recovering well in a hospital, surely the actions would have been far more sincere, because the consequences are dire. But still, one can only do their best. And each one defines what their meaning of "best" is, by being true to themselves.

This analogy can also extend to bigger responsibilities we have as citizens of a country, members of a community etc. What is the role we play in avoiding wars and working towards peace? How far should we go in fulfilling those duties? Can one draw a line on how much sincerity goes in fulfilling a promise? The minute one starts to contemplate what the minimum expectation is, the promise becomes a mere compulsion. When the heart is not involved, one can never put in their best, and they stop being completely true to the other person/ recipient.

However, having said that, even if each of us did execute only our bare minimum just for the sense of duty, in the larger perspective, the higher goals can be achieved; like those little squirrels helping Rama build a humongous bridge. Hmm... for a tiny squirrel, maybe that was the best, not the least? I'm digressing... from a practical standpoint, I guess even if each of us did our very least, the effects will still count - helping just one child in need of help, growing just one tree, saving just one room worth of electricity... etc.