Law & Ethics (Another assignment of mine for Engineering Ethics Course)

In a Healthy Society, the law of the land and ethics of the people play significant role in defining the Health of the society and Social life in the society. As the saying goes, “A chain is no stronger than its weakest link” if either of law or ethics is lax then it leads to the debasing of the health of the society. The “Book of the law” grows bigger as the basic ethics of people deteriorates. In fact, if people themselves are ethical then there would not have been a requirement for the law of the land. Unlike law that is enforced on individual Ethics cannot be forced. This calls for a need for law. This Writing mentions some of the key differences between Ethics and Law.

Ethics are the basic principle of an individual. It doesn’t depend on the legality involved in a matter. Of course, there can be dilemma or conflict of interest in some special cases that involves contradictory arguments. That is because of the complexity of the matter and non-obvious arguments involved. One such example is “Using animals to perform experiments and see how they react for poisons.” Although legally there exist, no conflict in this scenario a philosopher wouldn’t definitely see a conflict of interest involved. A morally ethical person would perhaps deny using animals in such a scenario. He would in fact use human beings, who are on death bed, who volunteers for such an experiment. Thus, Ethics are always a hand higher than law of the land. In fact, the law is always a derivative of Ethics.

On the other hand, Laws cannot handle all conflicting situations, unlike ethics that answers most if not all. Law is a set of rules that must be obeyed. A famous story of paradox, “When once two persons, a senior lawyer and a junior practicing lawyer get into an agreement stating that the practicing lawyer would pay the fee to the Senior lawyer once the practicing lawyer wins his first case”. Everything goes well until when the senior lawyer becomes indignant because the practicing lawyer didn’t pay him his fee for many years and so appeals in the Court. The practicing lawyer argues against senior lawyer defending that he doesn’t have to pay as he hasn’t won any case until then. Now the paradoxical situation arises if the practicing lawyer wins (i.e., he doesn’t have to pay senior lawyer as per court) this case, as this is his first case and ends up having has to pay senior lawyer his fee as per their agreement. Should the Junior Lawyer, then pay his Senior Lawyer or not ? Had it been an ethical issue this could have been solved easily, rather than being a Law issue. Thus, Ethics is the superset of Law and plays significant role in defining the law of the land.

Three Types of Ethics ( Engineering ) (This was an assignment for Engineering Ethics Subject during Master's Course)

Apparently, all the three ethics viz., Conceptual (or De-Ontology), Material (or Utilitarianism) and Virtue ethics looks like as though they have independent existence of their own. But a careful observation will make it obvious that the Conceptual and Utilitarian Ethics are the derivatives of the later. i.e., Virtue Ethics. In fact, a culture that doesn’t embrace virtue ethics whole heartedly has already booted the other two ethics knowingly or unknowingly. In a sense utilitarian and conceptual ethics are the results of virtuous thinking of virtuous people who bother to care about the process that is followed and the end result of their action. If Love and Integrity are most important ( most important of all for that matter) basic ethical values of a virtuous person he ensures that his every action would result in making things a little more beautiful if not otherwise, unless it takes a great vision and intelligence that is beyond his human limit. So in essence, a real loving/caring person will also care about other things like nature and not just his/her coworker, because a care for the nature is the care for the next generation, and it is the celebration of a virtuous man if he keeping this world a little beautiful for the coming generation.

In certain cases, conceptual ethics appear to be much more relevant than virtue ethics, although it is not true. Conceptual Ethics may appear superior only in a society or social structure that lacks virtue ethics. In such cases the head of the organization or the society (group of concerned people) has to make certain rules and regulations as to how one is supposed to live and let other in the society live decently. Even here the rules/regulations that make a major portion of conceptual ethics are a result of virtuous thinking of the law maker to keep the society in healthy conditions.

In Utilitarianism too, if a law binds people to ensure the resultant of their action should be ethical, the law is an obvious outcome of virtuous quality of the law maker. Even here, one can make people ensure that the material at the end of certain action is ethical through law, but none can make them really virtuous by enforcing a law. i.e., People can’t be made Virtuous, i.e., loving and caring by enforcing laws, rules and regulations. At the most they can pretend, but can’t love if they don’t wish to be. On the other hand, Even if People are not virtuous they can be made to follow certain protocol, when they carry out certain action. Thus, it can be seen that Conceptual and Utilitarian Ethics are the derivatives of Virtue ethics, which is the most significant of all kinds of ethics.

Here and Now!

It’s been since infancy, we have been listening to this doctrine, “live for today, not tomorrow”. Does this doctrine actually allows us to worry for anything that is going to happen before 12 Midnight, and does not allow to worry for anything that is going to happen after 12 Midnight? This micro time transition from post meridian to ante meridian has nothing to do with the biological mind, but might matters for rotation of sun and earth, causing day and night on earth. There is no logic in this or is there a deeper meaning in it? So, in this context, the term “tomorrow” might be referring to the very next moment of consideration. Even, In that case, how can it be possible to not to consider even the very next moment? Even uttering these words is not a momentary / spontaneous action, although it seems to be. Because, thought should first arise in the Brain, and then has to take at least microseconds of time to be manifested as words. This doctrine was not born today, but several centuries before. In fact, this is one of the oldest doctrines. Even during Kurukshetra war, (if at all it happened, or even though it is a parable) the peerless archer Arjuna feels despondent thinking of the future consequences that the war is going to cause. He was not just concerned about the future consequences, but in a way worried about the aftermath of the war. But then, Krishna consoles, and persuades him for the war. It is not the question now, whether Mahabharata was actually happened or not or whether it is just a parable, as it considered by Mahatma Gandhi to be a war in mind between good and bad. Rather, it is to be understood how one of the character, Krishna, who invokes the other character Arjuna to come out of worries, realize his true nature. Worry is always interlinked with inaction and a mere concern about the future always causes action.

This is what sakhyamuni Buddha has always emphasized, that the way of living life is not to lament for the past nor even to worry about the future but to live this very moment wisely. Of course, he is not insisting any one to be reckless. It is not wise to say that one should have sheer worry for the future, or either to be completely negligent or not being aware of the future consequences of the present actions. During, the initial days, before his enlightenment, he had confronted with a situation, where he observed a Musician, tuning the string of a musical instrument and if the strings were too tight, or too slack, the instrument could not produce music, but somewhere in-between the instrument could produce music. It is then Buddha realized, even the way of living life has to be tuned. Because just before this incidence, he had refrained himself from his observance of severe abstinence, eating rice (some say honey) given by a village girl and thus has lost his five disciples. It is not that people who have died for future of others are idiots. Because, indeed they were not worried, but were more considerate.

There is no necessity to be even bothered about everything. Confucius once asked by his disciple, “what will happen after death”? , Confucius replied, “having not understood life, why do you want to know about death. You can think of it, when you are lying in the grave, why to bother and waste time, now?”

After all, we haven’t really understood, yesterday, today and tomorrow nor have we understood past, present or future. In reality, there are only past and future. Present is subtle. If, this moment, this very second, you are living is present, then if this second is divided, the first half will become present and the second half will become future. And further if you divide, the first half second, further it goes. Nor even the microsecond can be called as present. Because zero can only be approximated to a least finite number but can never be equated exactly. It is like sitting at the origin of Cartesian co-ordinate system, and if you look right or forward it is future and if you look backward or left, it is the past. And what is the span of zero? It is hypothetical. That is why people call present as eternity. Any measurement from zero can be past or future, but no measurement will give you the present. It can only be a reference to decide past and present. So, in reality whatever we do saying that we are doing at present moment, is actually done for future. In the Cartesian co-ordinate system, the scale of time division line just moves from right to left as time passes. And now if the scale of division is changed, i.e., if the precision level is increased (imagine each division corresponds to micro and milli seconds) the line of time division will move slower and if the precision level is decreased (now, imagine each division corresponds to years or centuries), then the line of time division will move much faster. So, time exists because of distance. Because of speed of the motion. Some of the physicist even took a step further and declared that time doesn’t exist at all, only distance exists. There is no absolute time, because there is no absolute motion. Since all motions are relative all times are relative. Even if you stand at some corner of the universe, even then it is relative. Because even there, you need to look at other part of the universe for reference, to decide your time. This is what the genius of the century Albert Einstein postulated, that time and spaces are not separate entities, but are interlinked. They are interlinked in such a way, that there is always togetherness, when they exist. Just like electricity and magnetism, which are not two separate entities, although they seem like, but the manifestation of one another, to become electromagnetism. So, they are not Space and time but Spacetime. Hence, no matter whichever is created first in the mind, the other will exist automatically. And it is only this moment that is guaranteed. Because we you are already in it. Thus, when I say I’ll realize myself tomorrow, I have created a time gap, and hence an apparent distance, a distance that really never existed earlier, and same way when I say, I seek happiness, or truth or light, I have created a gap of distance and hence time as well. And this gap will never become zero, because wherever I go, I carry the same mind, hence the same distance and time maintained, until I become part of the eternity, until I become a witness for the very moment and until I realize and experience it right here and right now.

Ultimate Happiness!

Are we all really happy? Or we all are under illusion? When he was 29, he went in search of happiness. Not just happiness. He actually, went in search of absolute happiness. He succeeded in his endeavour of searching that. He even gets enlightenment. He sees absolute happiness. He says then, “There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way”. After all, what he was really looking for? Isn’t the happiness, we have been experiencing, absolute? Is there any other happiness, other than absolute? We feel happy when we buy a car, land or house or jewels and when we lose them we feel depressed. Our happiness is being controlled by these materials. In olden days, when cars were not invented, did they never experience happiness? Perhaps, they were aspiring to buy bullock carts and when they buy it, they would have delighted. Can we still buy a bullock cart and still be glad for that? “No!”…Because we have been controlled by many external forces. One will think, “My neighbor or my colleague or my relative has a flat/car, so I should also buy them”. If none of them has got anything, we also think, there is no necessity of owning any of them. This is perfectly, not absolute. This is relative . A happiness, which has got its birth out of comparison. Does this mean; no external factors should affect you or your feeling? Not for even heat, cold (I’m aware that there is nothing called cold :-) ), pressure, pollution. All these factors do not directly control your mind, but first affect your physical body and so your mind. Even if you try to control your mind, your body will never accept the change, beyond toleration. If however, a human being gets everything like, tolerable environment factors, basic needs like air, water, and food with all proteins and minerals, and last but not the least a loving and caring partner; will then, atleast, he or she feel fulfilled or still seek for happiness? Yes, Majority of the population does the same. It takes his/her entire life span to realize, what has been felt all over the time, is merely an illusion. I’m not denying that, the perceptions are really different sometimes, for instance sleeping on a stone and sleeping on a cot, makes difference as this again is a case of physical feel. There are even people who have been selling their “sleeps”, to buy a bed. Selling sleep of a day, to buy a bed the very next day, may be a good judgment, but selling sleep of entire life to buy a bed, despite knowing that he/she will never sleep on that bed, is nothing but insane. Bringing sophistication into our lives may be good to certain extent, but too much sophistication can even cause suffocation. What is the limit then? Ask your consciousness! We cried when we were born. We cry when our near and dear ones die and even when we come to know, our death is nearing. Sickness and old age will take away our happiness, as physically the body will become weak, and pain get accumulates in bones and muscles. Can we all go beyond these attachments to gain absolute happiness? What is the other way to get happiness? Some say, meditation gives happiness, as meditation brings silence and peace in one’s mind, and thus happiness. He had said, that one should meditate like earth, like fire and like water, that are not troubled by anything that comes in contact with them. (He is now, not present, but, if were, then he would not have used the simile, as we all have seen, the water is made polluted, that it is made unfit for drinking.) Our hunt for happiness never ends, till we understand that the only way to experience it is to first create it.

Being Dogmatic

Can controverting every theory bring a better comprehension over that? Perhaps to some extent! We have had happily squandered decades together, just being acted upon by someone else's ideas or theories. Let us all start playing devils advocate to bring more light on everything we do. I’ll tell you at the outset, we cannot perceive anything even visually as a whole at a time. Not even a microscopic particle can be seen in totality at a time. We’ll still be missing the other side of the smallest micro sphere, even. Then, how can we really look at other's viewpoint?

Indeed we need to traverse all round the object, just as different planets revolve around the sun in different planes (Non-coplanar). Let us altercate on so-called, widely discussed mystery of the world, "God". Different people around the world believe in god in their own ways and have their own theories. A Hindu performs "idolatry", which is widely criticized by westerners, even also described as "mother of harlots". The Buddhists, who are agnostic, worship Buddha, whom they have considered as a Man and not god. Nevertheless they worship different gods, for instance god of wisdom, goddess of speech. A Christian worships the holy cross. Muslims observe the formal prayers, 5 times a day.

Somehow or the other, we find, every religion depends upon god and believes in his existence, in someway or the other. When Hindus execute idolatry, are they really doing any senseless job by doing that? If he is omnipresent, why should he, be in the idols? Just saying, “it is one’s belief” or “it is like a Christian worshipping the holy cross”, merely doesn’t answer the question. On the other hand, one should try to understand the real rational behind the act. According to the great monk of India, swami Vivekananda, “it is an Endeavour to grasp high spiritual truths by an undeveloped mind, with the help of images or idols”. And no one is forced to do that, nor it is even compulsory. This, justification, in fact seems to be so true, that it really the boosts the confidence of one performing that.

Akin to this, we have many questions in our mind, and we still remain skeptical about them. Sometimes we offer money, flowers, fruits and even sacrificing animals, by killing them. Are all these acts, really take us to the path of realizing god? Can we discriminate, that offering flesh as evil and offering flowers as morally righteous act. We have been constantly told, that, god is ever active providence, merciful and impartial. We are even told, that even if you offer a flower or a fruit or even a leaf, with lots of love, one can please the so-called god. Because we thought, flowers or fruits are the gifts of god we again have to offer them to him. But when an ignorant man plucks a flower, from a plant, he never knew, that flower is the reproductive part of the plant. After all a flower is attractive and fragrant to allure bees. What is the advantage they get? Then? These bees bring pollen grains in contact with stigma, together will form seed, and in turn they get honey. This is the plan of nature! The universe is so, intelligent, so mysterious. Or when we offer fruit, is that righteous? Still, no! Then why do a plant, produce fruits. It is again, the arrangement of nature. Plants being non-locomotive, produce fruits, which are often attractive and tastier, for animals, which are locomotive, which inturn helps the plant in spreading that plant species over an area, that grow from the seed, when they excrete. So, if that is the case, shouldn’t any one eat other animal?

But, one thing is sure, the anatomy of Human, is not of carnivorous. Now, if however, every animal on earth relies on green and fruits, sooner, the planet is going to become a desert. Again, the universe is so intelligent; that it has created predacious animals that keeps ecology balanced. Even if all the animals become herbivorous, taking it for granted, that there is enough grassland on earth, even in that case; they are killing bacteria and microorganism, present in them. So, one cannot survive, without killing the other living being. Yajurveda says, one should not use his god given body to kill god’s creatures. Then, Is there no escape from this vicious circle? Are we committing sin, by doing this? If yes? What is the penalty for that?

Upanishad says, your past actions will decide your present state and your present state decide your future state, explaining birth and death cycles. Its says your present actions will determine, whether you are going to lead a life of happiness or misery. But, again this instigates, to arise many questions in mind. Because, we all have seen that happiness doesn’t just comes along with the birth, by being rich or poor, but also, and mostly depends on one’s attitude towards life. Richness cannot buy happiness and just poverty cannot stop some one from being happy. To strengthen this point, I like to tell u about a man, M.S Oberoi, founder of Oberoi group of hotels, once said, “I may be rich, but I’m not happy. The days, when I was living in shimla in a small house, with my wife and children, were the most joyous moments of my life”.

Then, all these are just mental condition of man? Does the idea of god evolved out of fear. Scientists at university of California at San Diego identified a portion of the brain; where the ideas of god and spirituality are being evolved, concluded that human beings are genetically programmed to believe in god. Once a young man asked Buddha, “Buddha, what are you? Are you a god? , “No”, “are you a prophet?” “No”, “who are you, then”, Buddha replied, “I’m awake”!

But Can, this alone answers for everything that seems to be mysterious in the universe. Is, there any religion, in the world that can explain the entity god? Perhaps Upanishads are the only books composed 3500 years ago, that explains briefly about the universe, creation, and birth and death cycles, death experience and other mysteries of this universe in accordance with physics. It explains about evolution of universe, the existence of life in a system, made to run for a time and again destroyed. Explains about life and death cycles, Katha Upanishad, goes a step forward and describes even the experience of death. you will not be convinced, at every aspect it speaks, rather for better understanding of this book, conscience of the reader should work. Nonetheless, the entity god is still seemed to be arcane to everyone. I've to leave now, bye, see you in the next blog.....