Nerve Endings Firing Away

I have observed that you are less likely to get an opinion when you explicitly ask for one. I opened up a veritable simple topic for discussion and got fewer responses than I expected. Anyways apart from ranting on unexpected apathy, I will launch again into one of my infamous diatribes.

The situation that I provided yesterday is a greater moral dilemma than one thinks. Although you can adopt a utilitarian procedure and think rationally as any homo economicus would think, but not every one of us is comfortable with that thought. It does make rational sense and seems to assuage our mind that we are indeed doing the right thing but that does not fail to rankle our heart reminding us that we might be doing something wrong. At the first reading and in the interest of the populace, it makes perfect sense to hand over an individual and get it over with. The individual, as I suggested can be the scum of the society i.e. inmate on death row or someone who willingly volunteers himself for the noble cause and thus subjects himself to martyrdom.

The other option would be to draw a lottery and ride on a wave of luck. But to subject a national issue to randomized procedure reeks of immaturity or lack of leadership. We can explore different options to select an individual but this option assumes that we already have surrendered to the greater power and are willing to be manipulated. This incident certainly will not be isolated and your action on this issue can hold you accountable for future situations that may demand a greater number of individuals as sacrificial lambs. The Clamons would just provide fodder for the Ghozac hanging galley in the future, if they do not voice any protest.

Even though I had emphasized on the inevitability of the massacre, few of you choose to stay back and fight in the spirit of “One for all and all for one”. This action although morally correct is mystifying and makes us think on the logic of such an action. Would we be willing to die en masse for a cause? Why do we even think irrationally in such a scenario? I believe the underlying motivation is the sense of justice or fairness as we see fit. We firmly believe in the concept of equality, liberty, and justice and although these terms can run tangentially to our normal line of thinking, we often base our decisions on these factors, even if the results are disastrous.

The maxim that it is preferable to die an honorable death rather than live a life of slavery epitomizes this entire idea. We are inherently programmed to stand up and fight for our basic rights of freedom and will not tolerate blatant prejudice and violation of fair practice. Gandhi exploited this human quality of examining things by the heart rather than the brain, to the hilt. But it is often difficult to achieve consensus in deontological matters, Kant would say it, because opinions of justice is subjective and even if one Clamon objected to the option of refusing and fighting, it would render the entire argument invalid because we cannot impose our heart-felt opinions on others. The idea of giving in to Ghozac blackmail and accepting their offer might hold ample justification but staying back and fighting stands on the sole pillar of honor and fairness.

So why even bother thinking about the fairytales of Ghozac-Clamon rivalry? We come across plenty of situations in our life although not as dramatic, when we are required to take a stance. It is extremely important what values you consider supreme and the extent to which you are willing to abide by them. To espouse high browed ideology is child’s play but the real test is holding on to those values during tough times.