A CHRISTMAS GIFT WORTH A SATISFIED SMUG SMILE!

 

A CHRISTMAS GIFT WORTH A SATISFIED SMUG SMILE!

I got an aftershave as a gift on the Christmas day. It is one of the commonest gifts that people get and give on this festive occasion. Look in any of the gift shop windows during this time, you would be sure to find a plethora of perfumes, aftershaves, and such, displayed in brightly colourful, eye-catching packagings. The newspapers and the magazines are bursting with half to full page adverts of big brands. On the television a lot of very creative, sexy and glittery adds start appearing in primetime slots. Online the social media is awash with similar adverts.

 I was incredibly thrilled to get this. My old one was almost run out. I was planning to buy a replacement soon. As I have not got a favourite or “can’t live without” brand, choosing one in the shops becomes very difficult, more so because this is a nonessential item, at least for me. The merchandise available in the stores and online is truly astronomical. I would have spent hours in sampling quite a few of them and then found out that the one I had taken to the counter was so expensive, it would not be a justifiable spend, ethically or financially.  I would be back to the drawing board!

 An essential item is much easier to choose and justify its price than a purely luxury item. Even though financially I can easily afford a really expensive object, I do fill a sense of guilt when the item is not a need.  I am not alone in feeling that. After all, “guilty pleasures” and “buyer’s remorse” are very frequently used British idiom and phrase respectively, not for nothing!

 The feeling of guilt in spending excessively on a Want not a Need, comes from the fact that it reminds one of conspicuous consumerism and the appalling economic inequality. It is also related to a niggling feeling that the money could have been more useful in doing something charitable or of more utilitarian value.

Last year after much rummaging I found an aftershave I liked, it had a classic, crisp fragrance, and the price was not too high. When I was taking it to the till to pay for it, a co-shopper conspiratorially offered a completely unsolicited advice “you would find it much cheaper online, I bought it yesterday on Amazon”.  I did thank him but I am afraid my hesitation betrayed my frustration and annoyance at the time. I put the box back at the shelf and later that evening ended up spending an hour or so on Amazon, the online shopping giant. The aftershave was indeed fifteen pounds cheaper but I spent another eighty pounds on other bargains!

Now you can see, why I was so delighted with this gift. This was like having three gifts in one: an aftershave I like, removal of guilt and the last but not the least, a big chunk of time. What is not to be chuffed about and have a smug smile!

HONESTY: THE MISSING LINK IN PROTAGORAS PARADOX

Protagoras was a philosopher and teacher in ancient Greece in mid 5^th century BC. A young man named Euathlus came to him to learn law and rhetoric. He entered into an arrangement with Protagoras that he would pay his fees once he won his first legal case. Protagoras normally took his fees before starting the course. However seeing how keen and bright Euathlus was, he agreed to it.

After the completion of the course, Euathlus started his practice but did not show much eagerness to win a case. Thus, he avoided paying the fees to Protagoras for many years. Protagoras decided to sue Euathlus. He argued, “If I win the case, I will get my money from you. If I lose, you will still have to pay as you have won your first case.”

Euathlus was cleaver. He countered, “If I lose, then I do not have to pay you as stipulated in our original contract. However, if I win then by the judgement of the court I am not obliged to pay you.”

This is Protagoras Paradox. One can lose but still win! In addition, it seems true for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

The problem arose here because none of them was being honest. They were using morality and legality as separate attributes and using one or the other, as it suited them. When the court ordered in their favour, they forgot their moral contract and when courts ruled against them, they clung to the moral contract conveniently ignoring the legal judgement.

In a democracy, the people have to hand over an immense power and control to elected individuals. For democracy to succeed and flourish these elected representatives have to be trustworthy and that they will have to be honest. Honesty does not mean mere compliance with the legal framework of the land or moral edicts. 

Many a leaders now, when caught in a scandal, justify their action on the ground of one or the other. They proclaim themselves right on legal or moral grounds as it suits them.

The daughter in law of a defense minister of a country was paid a certain sum of money from an arms manufacturer who signed a huge contract to supply armoured tanks. A major national newspaper published this accusing the minister for bribery and calling him dishonest. The minister said that neither he nor his daughter in law has done anything illegal. The manufacturer has just paid her for the liaison services that she had provided. He sued the newspaper and won a large compensation. 

Even though he was morally wrong, he justified himself legally. The paper was legally wrong but justified itself morally. This is Protagoras Paradox. It would not have existed if both the parties were honest.

In public life or even in personal life, whom will you trust implicitly: a person who does not do anything illegal but morally his dealings may sometimes be dubious or a person who has high moral standards but may not always be on the right side of the law?

If you look closely, you will find both types of people in your personal and public spheres. I believe people from either camp can be trustworthy and honest. Honesty does not depend on whether one is able to justify his actions legally or morally or even both. I will trust a person implicitly who tells the truth, the truth that he himself believes to be true. Moral and legal rationalization will come into play later when judging the consequence of his action. 

“In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.” — Immanuel Kant, (1724-1804) 

                                                                                                 

"Ah, if only the world was perfect!" -- Me

Why Rawan will have to be burnt again and again?

Last week we went to Dashahra celebrations arranged in one of the largest parks in Manchester. In spite of a cold, wet and windy weather thousands of people came.  They all jeered when the large effigy of the ten headed demon king Rawan came in the view and cheered when it was burnt following the bull’s eye hit by Ram’s arrow.

We are very enthusiastic and gung ho about burning not only the the Rawan of Ramayan but anyone who we perceive to be as evil as Rawan as long as he is not one of us. If he is our kin or we are directly benefitting from his evil deeds, we gladly tolerate him, even praise him and sometimes worship him.

 It is not only true for the individuals but almost all human institutions, whether it is a small charity organization or a big country. Even a cursory look at recent history of Saddam, Gaddafi and Taliban and their relation with different countries will prove the point. They had quite cosy and mutually beneficial relations with all the countries and kings who were capable of restraining them but choose not to. They were all attending different forums and meetings (the modern Swayambaras and Yagyas) with them at one time or another.

 Only when Rawan chooses to kidnap Ram’s Sita, all hell breaks loose.  Murder of thousands and suppression of millions in Iran, Libia and Afghanistan only raises Ram’s eyebrows not his all-powerful bow, until “nine eleven”!

The reason Rawan gets up and has to be burnt again next year is that each of us shelter a bit of him  within us and we choose not to kill it, till it attacks our own hearts and even then the Amrit of our self interest revives him back in no time.