Ok, so the response to the last post was pretty decent. (And I am really sorry about the font issue, and the comments security setting. I have handled both the problems and this post should be fine).
Mike's comment in the last post made me think about a subject I usually don't ponder about - not because I don't like the topic, and definitely not due to laziness - but it is one subject where I don't agree with myself (some paradox). What I am trying to say here is that the subject of idealism surfaces the hypocrisy within me that I often hide or mask under layers of ... well ... hypocrisy.
I did my schooling in a DAV. DAV stands for Dayanand Anglo Vedic. It is an educational institution that believes in teaching children modern education under western context, together with a strong emphasis on patriotism and spiritual understanding of world and its problems. There are bits and pieces of the spiritual lessons that I remember. The most prominent of these was regarding idealism and another related topic - 'moral dilemma'.
These two lessons had a profound impact on my psyche (usually I don't take school education very seriously). If I am correct, I was 13 or 14 years old at that time. The lessons were thought provoking rather than preachings. I can still recall, our instructor presented the following situation and asked us to think what we might do -
(Note : Cows are considered highly sacred in India. Keep this in mind while reading the following)
'You are on a street and see a cow running away from something. You see it hiding behind a bush and moments later a tanner appears before you. He looks weak and hungry. He tells you that he is looking for his cow that ran away. He says he is hungry and hasn't fed his family for days. By selling this cow's leather he can get some money and take care of his family'
Now, here is the question that my instructor asked us - "What would you do ?"
I understand I am mixing two seemingly different matters here. The problem seems more like a moral dilemma rather than anything related to idealism. But then, moral dilemmas arise under paradoxes of idealism. It is 'ideal' to protect the animal. It is 'ideal' to help the poor man. So the question is - "What would you do ?"
Now some of you would understand why I say - "I don't dare to be idealistic".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Wow! quite a difficult situation Puneet. The only solution I can think of is that I will buy the cow from the tanner, so that he gets some money and then sell it to the milkman (again the assumption that in India we have milkmen who have cows).
How about that ;)
lol! i am not surprised that shubham applied his managerial skills here. but that is a good solution. anyways, my point was that its not always that easy to come up with a solution. now, what if you were poor (or a grad student, hehe) ?
So idealism is the assumption that every moral problem has a positive solution? That sounds like a useful definition. Life is not generally a zero-sum game, after all.
None of my friends or family were very religious when I grew up, so I don't identify with the cow-tanner problem very much. But if you believe the killing of cows to be morally wrong, wouldn't you be under a moral imperative to liberate as many tanners' cows as you possibly can? Shouldn't the very existence of tanneries seem a great evil to you? Why doesn't this happen?
well, i am quite impressed by rahul's comment. it brings another issue to light - if you believe that something is morally incorrect then how do you deal with it ? do you neglect it, condemn it, or confront it ? i will think about this and this might be the subject for my next post.
But I still want an answer. Why are Hindus not outraged by the existence of tanneries in India?
Oh wait, I remember, tanneries are supposed to be okay if they only use cows that are already dead or dying. In which case, there's no problem revealing the cow to the starving tanner, because he's not going to kill the cow but merely take good care of it and wait for it to die, right?
@Puneet
What if YOU were a poor (grad student) - Sucks to be YOU :P
Rahul's comments interest me. A parallel in this country is the fact that many practices exist contrary to beliefs of many of those practicing religion (whichever it may be). I would like to put Rahul's comments in the perspective of the Government's explicit and implicit ethical beliefs. India's government is secular and democratic, but 80.5% of its population is Hindu. In the United States, Christians account for roughly the same percent of the population. The difficulty is the balance between respecting religious practice and maintaining secularism and individual freedoms. Unfortunately, any course of action with regards to the tanner will be morally justifiable in either the Hindu or societal moral framework, but not in the other. Which do you choose? Well, that is your prerogative, so choose what you can live with. I work with computers, so fortunately these policy decisions rarely are decided by me :)
that is what we usually do, mike. we choose what we can live with. but then the line dividing 'morally justifiable' from otherwise is set individually depending upon what one is comfortable with. and can be modified (with some psychological adjustments) to account for what was earlier not justifiable.
i think i have lost the idea that you were talking about in your comment. i think what you are trying to say is that morals and ideals are just some rules set by the majority of the population ('mostly acceptable' or unacceptable, so to say). but then we need to be flexible enough to have a higher conscience which is dictated by compassion and understanding. but, then again, that is what leads me to the dilemma :)
I'd definitely show him the way to the cow, in return, of course, for 10 kilos of sirloin...
Well said.
Post a Comment