Key Idea in Amartya Sen's Theory of Justice

Substantive freedom is the capability of a person to choose life form one has reason to value. Or put it differently, substantive freedom is the capability of a person to choose various lifestyle that she has reason to value. Maximising substantive freedom serves as the foundation for Amartya Sen's theory of justice. Injustice, thus, is unfreedom that restricts a person from choosing life form that she has reason to value.

For example, a rich man who fasts to give his meal to a poor man is in a different condition than a poor man who fasts because he has nothing to eat. The rich man here has freedom to eat or not to eat; whereas the poor man does not have that freedom. For Sen, justice would then mean providing mechanism/opportunity so that the poor man too would have the kind of freedom like the rich man.

His book Development as Freedom has very useful practical means to enhance justice. He argues for democracy, not least because democracy as opposed to totalitarian regime is good in itself but because such political arrangement compels political leaders to be accountable to the people. He also argues for the upliftment of women and importance of public reasoning. All such implications are important features he cogently argued for.

One of the flaws, I see, in setting substantive freedom as the foundation for theory of justice is that those individuals who cannot make choices are not included in the scope of the theory. There are human persons because of sickness or from birth who cannot make choices. But since they are also human person, one needs to be inclusive and not just bracketed them out. Thus for a theory of justice to be viable one must have an intellectually robust viewpoint of who a human person is. John Rawls in the opening page of his book A Theory of Justice underlines that each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot orveride. The problem with Sen's theory is that once there is an intellectual loophole, the next generation will live it out in flesh: bad or good. And I fear Prof. Sen does not intellectually protect that flank which a mad political leader or a scientist can perform some bizarre act on those who cannot make choices.

But I must mention that I have high respect for Prof. Sen specially the kind of humility and sincerity he exercises in putting forth his arguments. His books have sharpen my thinking in many respects.

Interesting conversation between two famous personalities

John Stott is dead, and so is Sai Baba; and so will you, and I too.

John Stott ( 1921 - 2011) who is one of the most respected clergymen in the world is no more. He passed away on 27^th July. The kind of influence that he had among Christians may be similar to the kind of influence that Sathya Sai Baba (1926-2011) had among Hindus. Stott was educated in Cambridge University, and he rose to become a prolific teacher and writer. And until his death he remained a celibate.

Whether one is rich or poor, black or white, male or female, all will die one day. That is an appointment we all cannot evade. Proud men and women, they too will die. Death indeed is the greatest leveller. The money we have earned working day and night will be left behind, and somebody else will enjoy this fruit of our hard labour. If this person is wise, thank God, the fruit of our labour will not be in vain. But if it is otherwise, I won't want to know how the money would be utilised!

The person you love the most will die as well. Your parents, your spouse, your siblings or your children. This is reality. And once a person is dead, nothing can be done about him or her. All prayers and rituals can do nothing good for that person. Sympathy and tears are all for the living ones. The dead simply remains dead, unmoved and untouched. So take time to think about your life NOW!

Is dead THE END? What is the PURPOSE of your life? What are you doing to FULFILL that purpose?

We have a fear for death. For the unknown. There is one person who have faced death, but return to life. It's not some kind of resuscitation. But it is returning to life after having really faced death. My guru or your guru will all die. But this person is different. And he is Jesus Christ. He died on 7^th April, 30 A.D, and came to life on the third day. On 19^th May, he ascended to heaven. He says that for those who accept him as Lord and God, death is NOT the end; death for such person is just a gateway to the other side of life and BEYOND.

John Stott is one person I admire and he has influenced my life so much through his writings. I know that dead is not the END for him. I have never seen him here, but I shall see him one day. And it is because Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, is risen from the dead. That is the hope I have. 

What kind of HOPE do you have and what is it BUILT upon?

Is it immoral to tell a person that her religion is wrong?

If religion is about a way of life, then certainly it would have so much of influence on the way a person lives. A religion that has nothing to do with our lives is a useless religion. The way we eat, dress or conduct our moral behaviour are all influenced by our religious preference. If we observe people of different religion and compare their way of life, it is not difficult to spot such differences. Yet we all do have common practices too. 

A Muslim would not eat certain food item. And that is true for a Hindu too. Jains are vegetarian in complete contrast to Christians who have no religious sanction for avoiding any food items except for health reason. Sikhs wear turban as part of their religious tradition; Muslims women do wear burqa and one often comes across Muslim men wearing topi (cap) as if to express their differentness. Christians and Hindus do not have any particular dress code that is binding on them as it is with the Muslims and Sikhs. 

Christians are to work for six days, and on the seventh day to rest and gather for corporate worship. This concept of observing Sabbath Day is a very important feature of Christian practice. Buddhist and Hindus do not have such a day in a week as in the sense of Christians' Sabbath Day. Muslims gather together for prayer on Friday till noon, and the rest of the day can be as other days so that you can even conduct business and other works.Muslims are allowed to have upto four wives provided certain conditions are fulfilled. But such polygamy is prohibited for all the other religious systems. 

But all these differences in practice emerge, so to speak, from differences in doctrinal or metaphysical belief. Christians believe in Jesus Christ, the incarnated God, as Lord. And the language of the Bible too incarnated in the world in which it was born. Therefore, there is no sacred language in Christian belief. Since incarnation is a key concept, Christians can 'incarnate' into any culture. Thus, there is no particular dress code or food habit etc for Christians. Except in moral areas Christianity 'incarnates'  into any culture. For Muslims, Allah cannot take on human form, and  Arabic is the language for Quran. This Arabic cannot incarnate into other culture. Thus we find elements of Arabic culture and language  wherever Islam spreads. Hindus belief about deity has been so diverse, that there can be millions of belief or no belief in a deity. Atheism, theism, pantheism, panentheism, animism or deism can all be appropriated into Hinduism.

Buddhists' nirvana is cessation of suffering. Hindus' moksha is getting out of the karmic cycle. Jains and Sikhs have similar understanding of liberation. Christians and Muslims' salvation is about being in God's presence forevermore. Buddhism is not world affirming as much as Christians, Muslims and Sikhs are. Hindus and Jains have different patterns for different people. And thus these religions engagement with the world or lack thereof differ. And none of the religions have such thing as Sharia Law as is found in Islam.

So we have even the purpose or goal of the religion itself different from one another. And therefore we have such diverse ways to reach the goal. Are all the goals correct? No way. Unless we live in madhouse no one with sane mind can say all the goals are correct. Now one can say, "you pursue your goal and follow your ways to reach your goal." But suppose there is no God as Jains or Buddhist would say, the very goal of Christians and Muslims are incorrect. So is it then the obligation of Jains and Buddhists to show others the right way? But if indeed your belief -- goal and ways, are true, and you remain silent about it,not telling others the right one, you are being immoral. Well, like other aspect of life, one must be respectful in telling that she is mistaken about her way of life (religion). But religious conversion or helping people towards the correct path is a moral obligation. To insist that all religious goals and ways are equally correct is just to render all religious belief and practice meaningless.

If there is no scope for conversion or reformation or refinement, then religious dialogue is superflous. If we are to cultivate religious harmony, inter-religious harmony is important. And when such inter-religious dialogue takes place, introspection results and the next step is refinement of one's religious traditon. Or sometimes one has to make drastic reformation and sometimes convert.

Daniel Duomai & Melissa Bleck

Norway Attacker a Christian Fundamentalist?

So the Norway terrorist confessed himself to be a Christian, and hates Muslims and adores Hindutva ideology? Well, he is doing some of the things a follower of Christ should never be doing.  Terrorizing innocent people to achieve one's political or religious objective is never a Christian approach, and should never be. In fact, it's not just about being unchristian, but every human person or organisation or government should never use such approach. 

Jesus does not teach his followers to hate anyone. Jesus hates sin, not the sinner. And the same attitude is expected of his followers too. Put it differently, is it a morally acceptable practice to hate Muslims? No. It's quite alright to think Muslims are wrong in their belief, as much as it would be right for them to think Christians are wrong in believing and worshiping Jesus as the divine Lord. And what do we do about it if we disagree with their belief? Kill them? No way. Tell them about Jesus Christ, and show love and respect to them.  Had Anders Breivik understood his Bible, instead of engineering such massacre he would have shared about Jesus to Muslims, and given them the choice to accept or reject.

Did Anders know what Hindutva's attitude is towards the Christians, forget about its attitude towards Muslims? As much as Hindutva's attitude towards minorities like Christians and Muslims are harmful and bad for human flourishing, so much so would any of such attitude of Anders towards Muslims be harmful and bad for human flourishing. I don't know what Anders' ideology is, but if it is like that of Hindutva fringe group I am sure it is bad for any society. No wonder majority of Hindus do not share such ideology! 

If religion is a way of life, as all Christians, Hindus and Muslims would claim then it is quite reasonable that people would have different set of beliefs about it. Utilitarians come up with an approach to life which is different from that of deontological way of thinking, and they compete with each other in public square in a free and fair way. And let such atmosphere prevail even among different religious adherents. You think you are right, share your way of life in free and fair way. No bombs; just words. Let truth win!

Funny Video

Nicholas Wolterstorff on Seeking Justice in Hope

Hope is different from optimism – optimism being understood as the expectation that one will achieve that one endeavors for. An ambulance attendent who attempts to resuscitate a person may not expect to succeed in his effort. Yet as long as she sees some hope, she attempts. If she thinks there is no hope, she gives up and stops trying. Working for justice does not require optimism; it is hope that is required!

Whether it is God's calling of Moses from the burning bush or Zechariah's song of deliverance upon the birth of his John (the Baptist), the sub-narratives are not about hope for consummation at the end of eschaton; they are hope for deliverance in space and time. In the Scripture one can see three strands of theological anthropology – “ there is the story line of how God relates to all that is not God as creator and sustainer, there is the story line of how God relates to all that is not God as consumator, and there is the story line of how God relates to all that is not God as deliverer or redeemer.” And for Moses, God was to deliver from affliction and suffering, and for Zechariah enemies. It is, if we differently word, to be delivered from being wronged.

“What is it to be wronged? It is to fail to receive or enjoy what is due one. It is not to fail to receive or enjoy what one would like, nor to fail to receive or enjoy what would be good for one... One is wronged only when one is deprived of some good to which one has a right... Injustice occurs when someone is deprived of some good that is due him or her – that is, when a person is wronged, when that person is deprived of something to which he or she has a right. Conversely, justice is present in some community insofar as its members enjoy those goods that are due them, to which they have a right. Justice is present when no one is being wronged.”

From the biblical story line of redemption, one can distinguish “doing justice” and “seeking justice”. Doing justice will mean not wronging a person; of not violating her right, and not being responsible of a person not enjoying what is due her. Seeking justice will mean working in a situation to alter or rectify someone's situation so that it is no longer a situation of injustice. In 1 Cor 15.24, St. Pauls say that after every (corrupt and competing) rule and authority and power have been destroyed, will Christ deliver the kingdom to God. Given the Old Testament background, say Ps 72, “Paul's implicit thought must be that there are two kinds of kingship, the kind that consists in the administration of a polity in which there is no justice, and the kind that consists in struggling to overcome the injustice present in the polity. Christ's kingship is of the latter sort.” Christ will conquer injustice – seeking justice, and the Father will reign – doing justice. Followers of Jesus do hope for justice because it is Christ's cause.

Christians hope for liberating justice ( as one seeks justice) will take the form of prayer too, among other things. And this prayer must include naming injustice, and then to pray for the undoing of the injustice named. And when the named injustice is undone, Christians hope will then offer prayer of thanksgiving. This prayer of thanksgiving for undoing the injustice identifies thus the signs of Christ liberating work in history.

Christians hope is grounded in the promise that He will bring his just and holy kingdom. “But then we learn that God moves in mysterious ways, sometimes bringing our best effort to naught, sometimes wresting liberation out of appalling evil.” So does it really matter because God is going to anyhow do it in his own time and sovereign will? Well, just obey him. No matter what, obey. For He would much rather have you and I try our best than have you and I just slack off. What you and I do today matter for His work! 

( This is a summary of an essay by Prof. Wolterstorff in the book The FUTURE of HOPE, Eds Miroslva Volf and William Katerberg, Eerdmans, Cambridge UK, 2004, pp 77-100. Other contributors include John Milbank, Jurgen Moltmann et al. ) 

Practice homosexual relationship or remain a celibate?

Once when I was leading a Bible study group, I remember one student from Hindu faith argue with with me that it is impossible to remain single as an adult. He argued that since sexual drive is pervasive and strong, it has to be released through some kind of channel. I was of the view that not all adult need to marry, and some singles of every generation that we know have remained unmarried all their life without getting into any kind of sexual union with anyone. Since then I have come across similar argument being used by some people to argue in favor of homosexual relationship. As in the past, I still believe that one can remain single and be content.

Homosexual practice in the Old Testament was condemned with severe punishment. Even in the New Testament, such teaching against homosexual relationship continued. There was no loosening of the teaching in the New Testament. Homosexual practice was not uncommon in the Roman world; yet Christians consistently taught against homosexual practice and maintained purity in this regard. For example, Romans 1. 26-27 says, “ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passions for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. “( RSV) This teaching on homosexual relationship, however, is only for those who commit themselves to live by the biblical standard. Those outside are not bound nor should they be forced to live according to Christians' standard. Should the law of the land endorse homosexual relationship? Does it harm the society's vision of common good or should it be legalised as part of freedom for citizen to express their sexual preference? These questions are important, and they deserve another post!

The Scripture does exhort unmarried people to be single. For those who are single have less constraint in being available for His service. One can be single and live a fulfilling live if we would commit our life to Jesus and his mission. Whether it is someone with homosexual tendency or otherwise, if one is a single there will be attack – the temptation to seek sexual relationship outside of biblical standard or the attack of loneliness. But there have been people in the past who have been faithful to God, and whose service to humanity has been tremendous. And such people continue to be there even today. And so it is possible to remain single and be content. However, it is also the responsibility of the married ones to take extra effort in providing fellowship to those who are single.

There has been this attitude that being single is due to the person's weakness or shortcoming. And so our society has not learnt to be appreciative of singleness. As society we need to change the way we perceive those who are single. We need to accept that some people are called to be single. As members of society we would have experienced those who are single being more helpful and readily available for service than those who are married. And specially coming from a close knit society that has been experience. I have not been called to serve as single. But those who are called to be single and serve, I do express my respect for them.

Francis Collins Sings!

Just War Theory: Augustine and Aquinas, and Terrorism

It was Tertullian who asked: What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Unlike Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan advised Christians not to withdraw from the world. Augustine (354-430), following his mentor Ambrose, writes that it is part of Christian duty to work for justice in the world. Ambrose as well as Augustine reject self-defence as appropriate reason for war. However, both of them considered it as Christian obligation to defend the third party nation from aggressor. Augustine thus held that war is justified only under certain conditions-- such as, defending against an unjust oppressor, protecting or rescuing innocent victims in hostile territory, and defending an ally and similar situations. Further, Augustine gave instructions on how to use force, and not just when war is justified. So the question of “when” and “how” were addressed.

Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274) too was not a pacifist. Aquinas laid down three fundamental guidelines for a war to be just: legitimate authority, just cause and right intention. For Aquinas, declaration of war by a legitimate authority was an extremely important condition for he feared that if princes and nobles could declare war for some petty reasons, chaos will reign supreme. Departing from the viewpoint of Augustine, Aquinas was of the view that self-defence was a legitimate reason for war. Thus, when an emperialistic nation/kingdom invades another nation/kingdom, fighting back to protect its territory from the aggressor is a just war. By similar token, waging war for emperialistic expansion of territory would be unjust.

It is important to note that even in situation when it is just to wage war, non-combatants or civilians do not come under attack. The respect for the sanctity of this innocent lives must be safeguarded. The (natural) right of the innocent lives insist that nation-states that go to war observe this right with utmost respect. In present day situation, if nation-state that go to war (on terrorism!) would not distinguish between non-combatants and combatants, how would we differentiate between an act of terrorist group and non terrorist group. Being a nation state or non-state actor do not provide immunity to being called labelled a non-terrorist group. Whether it is US invasion of Iraq or Sri Lankan govt's war on Tamil Tiger or Indian Govt counter-terrorism efforts, army officers or politicians whose orders and policies deliberately killed or injured or tortured non-combatants to achieve their political ends must be brought to the court for trial and appropriate sentence given.

In any war, people are killed and there is loss of resources. And Bible does not endorse war. However, for the sake of lesser evil there arises situations when war has to be fought. The choice, therefore, is about two situations where there would be casualty and loss, and yet as Christians we choose that which would result in lesser casualty and loss or greater good through intervention. The end purpose thus is for greater good!

Why huge and wasteful Churches, Gurudwaras, Mosques and Temples?

CHURCH

India is still a spiritual nation. Even those who eat money, drink money and sleep money have to be part of religious ceremony once a while to be part of the larger spiritual community. Secularization has not really done away religion. And this pattern is most likely continue for the rest of the future one can predict about. And because strands of Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism can embrace atheism without any slightest hint of discomfort, how much ever Hitchens or Dawkins proselytize, India will continue to be spiritually lively.

Yet there are areas of practice that this spiritual communities must reform to remain relevant. And one area that they all need a paradigm shift is in the area of construction of huge worship centres. All the prominent religious communities are guilty of constructing lavish and gigantic worship centres. Many of these worship centres have no need for such sizes. Surely, one must construct worship centres big enough to accommodate the devotees. However, contruction of such worship centres much bigger than the requirement is a waste of resources.

TEMPLE

There are other ways to spend the money. The country has millions of people going to bed without two meals a day. And there are millions of children who don't have access to schools and basic healthcare. Each year nature's fury in the form of flood hit certain parts of the country, and had dams being constructed at appropriate locations, such calamities could have been avoided. Religious devotion without concrete expression of concern for one's neighbour is an empty religion. Building magnificent worship centres without showing love to other human being will not take a devotee closer to whichever deity on worships.

MOSQUE

GURUDWARA

Too much money has been wasted in building Churches, Gurudwaras, Mosques and Temples. One can see massive worship centres being built each year across cities. And this trend must be arrested quickly. If it is the pride that prompted devotees to build construct such worship centre, such devotees are farthest from the spirit of authentic worship. The pride of having participated in the construction of the most massive worship centre, at the expense of other urgent requirements, is the lure of distorted worship that subtly attacks devotee of all religious traditions. If one is to express spirituality in an authentic way, then it  must be through showing love and care toward those who are in need, not through wasteful construction of massive worship centres. 

I am not proud of the resources that people belonging to my religious community are wasting. Are you?

My comments on the idea of human rights of Amartya Sen and Nicholas Wolterstorff

In his chapter on Human Rights and Global Imperatives, Prof. Amartya Sen did not attempt to spend considerable time to ground the foundation for human right. He compared importance of the assertion of human right to the importance of happiness. But for a country like India, where discourse on human right has not be a part of the intellectual tradition, I would want that Prof. Sen goes further. Had the conviction that all humans are equal is not grounded sturdily, and therefore if certain members of the society are considered as lesser human, human right would not become such a pervasive quest.

Prof. Sen did comment that not all rights are part of human right. But in the endorsement of the inclusion of  "second generation" rights in UN declaration on Human Right, he did include right which should have not been part of human right. For example,"right to join trade union" should not have been part of human right, though such right is an important right. Though one would wish to see nation-states legislating such right as part of legal right, including such right in the sanctum of human right could open the door for all sort of rights to come under human right, and thus makes human right lose its steam. 

Prof. Wolterstorff's cogently argued that theistic grounding of human right is more plausible than secular grounding. Besides providing grounding for human right on theistic foundation, I wish that he would go on to address some contemporary relevant cases. The most common cases of human right violation takes place in the context of state maintaining its national security. But maintaining national security can take place in diverse ways. For example, the Burmese government's crackdown on civil right activist in the name of maintaining national security is different from that of Colombo's crackdown on Tamil Tigers, and these are different from operation on Al-Qaeda is being conducted. These are thorny issues, but they are live issues that need global debates. Whether it's Sen or Wolterstorff, I find some very important human right issues being skipped in the book. 

As an agnostic Prof. Sen may be reluctant to ground human right on theistic foundation. However, if that is the only intellectually compelling reason, I see no reason why one must not endorse the approach. Some of the points Wolterstorff left out, Sen included them in his essay. Taking Wolterstorff theistic grounding, and enfleshing it with Sen's material would make a book complete.One line of endorsement in favour of Wolterstorff's says, " Justice is the most impressive book on justice since Rawl's A Theory of Justice." Similar line is found in Sen's work too-- I believe that Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice is the most important contribution to the subject since John Rawl's A Theory of Justice..." Well, I do endorse the books too. Both the authors have very important words for those who are concerned for human flourishing. 

The idea of Human Right in Nicholas Wolterstorff's Justice: Rights and Wrongs

Nicholas Wolterstorff is the Noah Porter Professor Emeritus of Philosophical Theology at Yale University. He has taught at Harvard, Oxford, Notre Dame, Princeton and others. His many books Until Justice and Peace Embrace, John Locke and the Ethics of Belief, Thomas Reid and the story of Epistemology and Justice in Love.

A human right is a right attached to the status of being a human being. Not all kinds of rights are human rights. The right not to be tortured is a human right. UN Declaration on Human Right-- example, that everyone has a right to periodic vacations with pay is not a human right.

It seems unlikely that secular grounding of human right would succeed, given that even after many attempts it has not succeeded. Kant adopted 'capacities approach' to ground human right. “Capacities approach” may roughly be defined as as that 'capacity to set ends through reason as contrasted with acting on the basis of impulse, addiction and the like. The problem with adopting 'capacities approach' is that people born with mental impairment and who would not be able to reason would have to be left out. For somewhat similar reason the secular grounding of Ronal Dworkin and Alan Gewirth too failed.

The Bible tells that humans are created in God's image. And thisis the most common grounding for theistic account. God loves each and every human being equally and permanently, and that worth bestowed by the love of God serves as the basis for human right.

Richard Rorty considers that grounding of human right in human dignity is 'outmoded'. To get more people to embrace human right culture, the far more effective mean is to tell 'sad and sentimental stories” to evoke sympathy, not find a philosophical grounding. Wolterstorff disagrees. The Serbian soldiers raped and killed Bosnian women in the latter's faces and voices; and the Nazis guards in the faces and voices of their Jewish victims. Yet sympathy was not evoked. As a long as a man believes that the other person does is unworthy of better treatment, seeing her face or hearing her voice will not ordinarily evoke sympathy. Conviction, therefore, must be engaged too. Conviction that this human person too has great worth.

A right is a legitimate claim to some good in life of the right-bearer. “So a right against someone is a legitimate claim against that person to their doing or refraining from doing something with respect to oneself.” To dishonour that right is to wrong someone. Rights are normative social relationship; and honouring these social relationships are foundational to human community.

The idea of Human Right in Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice

Amartya Sen ( b. 1933) is a Nobel laureate in Economics and is currently the Lamont University Professor and Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University and was until recently the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge University. His many books include Development as Freedom, Rationality and Freedom, Identity and Violence and The Idea of Justice.

One can compare an assertion of human right to ethical proclamations such as “happiness is important” or “personal liberties must be preserved”. The question whether there is such a thing as human right is thus comparable to asking whether happiness is really important or liberty really matters.

Jeremy Bentham dismissed natural rights as nonsense. “ Right, the substantive right, is the child of law; from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws... come imaginary rights”, argued Bentham. Sen, however, argued human right as parents of law; and these laws motivate specific legislation. But this legislation of new law or legal rules need not be the only way to advance the ethics of human right; this can be achieved, for example, through “education and public discussion on civility and social conduct”.

Discourse on human rights is linked to the importance of human freedom. And this “importance of freedom provides a foundational reason not only for affirming our own rights and liberties, but also for taking an interest in the freedom and rights of others.” However, freedom of certain kind ( not to be disturbed at night) is not really a matter of human right as freedom of other kind ( not to be tortured). To determine which all kinds of freedom must be placed within the spectrum of human right further impartial scrutiny and debates need to continue.

Since freedoms are important, it is significant that others who are not themselves causing the violation of someone's rights do not brush away the violation of someone else's right as 'none of my business'; one should defend or promote the rights of others too. We are bound by various constraints in helping others realize their freedom, but these constraints must not be confused with having no obligations at all. There is loosely specified obligation (imperfect obligation) and more fully specified obligation ( perfect obgligation) which belong to an important category of Kant's duty.

UN declaration of Human Rights in 1948 have included 'second generation' rights such as 'right to work, right to education, protection against unemployment and poverty, the right to join trade unions and even the right to just and favourable remuneration.' Critics of these 'second generation' rights argue that such rights cannot be institutionalized and cannot be feasibly realized. Sen's answer to such critique is that obligations can be both perfect and imperfect. Excluding them in the inner sanctum of human right would be to “ignore the reasoning that fires these constructive activities, including working for institutional changes”. “ Indeed, if feasibility were a necessary condition for people to have any rights, then not just social and economic rights, but all rights,-- even the right to liberty-- would be nonsensical, given the infeasibility of ensuring the life and liberty of all against transgression.”

The nature of the topic requires that further disputation and discussion will go on. Despite repressive regimes refusing open discussions on the topic, monitoring of violation of human rights and the procedure of 'naming and shaming' can be so effective , at least, in putting the violators on the defensive, and this is some indication of the reach of public reasoning when information becomes available and ethical arguments are allowed to be debated rather than suppressed. Such exercise will advance the ethics of human rights.

No More Night: David Phelps at his best!

Terrorism and militancy

Today's The Hindu carries a leading news item about an obscure outfit that carried out bomb blast that derailed some coaches of Guwahati-Puri Express in Assam. The derailment as a result of the blast injured 93 passengers. Looking at the picture, it was pleasantly surprising that no one died. The outfit known as Adivasi People's Army is reported to have claimed responsibility for the blast.

Of the many Underground groups in India, not all of them terrorized civilians to achieve their political objective. The bombing of a train that carried civilian passengers like this cannot but be termed as terrorist act. Since the group is an obscure one, it is not known what their political objective is. But irrespective of whether their demand is legitimate or otherwise, carrying out an attack on civilians like this is immoral and outrageous.

Sometimes, some people termed all Underground groups as a terrorist group. But that is not a correct way to read the matter. Some groups demand are not legitimate; some deserve better treatment. Some use guns judiciously; some indiscriminately. I would label a group as terrorist only when it deliberately employs violence towards civilians or non-combatants as part of its policy for reasonably long period of time to achieve its objective. The definition is not without problem, but that's the best one could arrive at.

It is also important to note that terrorist activities are not only employed by underground groups. Even government can deliberately use violence against civilians to achieve its objective. Such violence by state also has to be termed as terrorism. Thus, it is not only non-state actors that must be called as terrorists; even state must be called terrorist whenever it terrorizes people. And whenever leaders of a nation-state employs terrorism, they need to be brought to court for trial.

On Evolution and Theology

Q. What exactly do you mean by a "hierarchy of explanations," and how can it help reconcile theology with evolutionary accounts of life?
 

Answer: Let me begin with an analogy. Suppose someone is driving your car down the street. You ask: "Why is my car moving?" At one level of explanation a good answer is "because the wheels are turning." At another level as equally acceptable explanation is that internal combustion has set the pistons, drive-shaft, and so forth, in motion. At still another level the answer may be "because Jim is driving it." And at another level the explanation might be "because Jim has to go to the store." 

This is a simple example of a hiererchy of explanations. All of these explanations make sense at their own level. And all can coexist without contradicting or competing with one another. Taken together they constitute a richer explanation than any provides for itself. 

Life in this universe also lends itself to such a hierarchy of explanations. Take cellular DNA, for example, one of the richest instances of complex design we can find in nature. How can we explain DNA? 

DNA can be understood quite well at the level of chemistry. At another level, DNA can be understood by the geneticist in terms of its hereditary properties, features that don't interest chemistry as such. And, at a still higher level, DNA can also be interpreted by the Darwinian biologist as the fundamental unit of natural selection. Each of these levels can enrich our understanding of life. The evolutionist, moreover, does not have to be an expert in the "lower" levels ( for example, biochemistry) in order to understand the role DNA survival plays in the origin of species. There is a legitimate autonomy in each of the sciences. 

The famous Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr accepts the idea of a hierarchy of explanation. However, he claims that Darwin gives us the "ultimate" explanation of life. Mayr is not a theist, so he has no use for theology. He feels no need to look any higher in the hierarchy of explanations than the Darwinian notion of natural selection in order to find the deepest explanation of life. Similarly Richard Dawkins of Oxford University accepts in principle the notion of hierarchy of explanations. But he abruptly declares that gene-survival is all that is going on when evolution brings about complex instances of design. Any allegedly "higher" or deeper level of explanation is superfluous. 

However, theology has every right to suspect that both Mayr and Dawkins are still living in Flatland. For theology can also legitimately claim a place, at another level of the hierarchy, in the explanation of life. To do so it does not intrude-- in a competitive fashion-- into the various levels of scientific explanation, as though it has a "better" explanation than they do. Rather, theology claims that the ultimate explanation of evolution is divine creativity. And it does so without in any way disturbing the integrity of the various sciences. 

In the case of the moving car, the fact that Jim wants to go to the store is a "higher" level of explanation, but it does not contradict or compete with the other levels of explanation. Theologically speaking, the fact that God wants the universe to unfold in an extravagantly creative way does not abolish the chemical, genetic and evolutionary accounts of life.

( Excerpt from John F. Haught's Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution. The author is Senior Fellow, Science and Religion, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.)

NB: I highly recommend the book to those who wish to get introduced to the topic on Theology and Evolution. It's not written in a technical fashion; so those even from humanities and social science background can understand and be enriched. You can pay after delivery or with Debit card you can order from 
http://www.flipkart.com/