Is it fair to treat certain members of a society unequally?

Does the idea of justice demand that we treat certain members of the society unequally?

The society in which we live is not a fair or just one. Many people die of exposure to cold in winter as they sleep under the bridge. And in summer many people die of dehydration. It is the those living in the slums whose house get bulldozed and who face power cut more often than the rest though everyone pays the electricity. The poor thus have to manage without a fan in summer so that the rich could run their AC. The poor in the slums are so often denied ration card and they struggle to get it made as the officials are not helpful. But when the rich appears they get it made easily...for various reasons! The poor people also don't have sufficient to eat and so their children too grow up facing such shortage. The children often failed to go to school and so in their later life cannot compete with the rest. Even if they go to school they go to Government run schools the facilities would be so poor. And it is because of such poor facility that the rich don't send their children to these schools. In sickness the poor suffers, and when some lethal sickness strikes they are oftentime unable to get out of it. Or even if they did get out, all their resources would have been drained.

Privileges and resources are unequally distributed. Hardship and suffering are not equally distributed in the society. The poor face injustice in their social relations so much more than the rich and the powerful. They are unable to fight for their case; they don't know all the legal systems. They are treated with less respect.

It is good that if everybody's capability could be developed. However, if there is resources crunch, the poor must get the preference over the rich to be developed. The poor has to be brought up the level of the rich. If distributive system is unequal and therefore unequal distribution of resources and hardship result, then rectifying justice must entail that more resources be channeled to those who face more injustice more.

Just distribution entails that we have to distribute resources unequally specially in the light of the practical resources constraint that we experience.

How Christianity Became the Dominant Religion in the West

One of the most significant books I have ever read on history of Christianity is Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity. When I first read the review, I was doubtful if modern sociological method could provide insight to ancient religious movement. But as I picked up the book for myself, I found the arguments of Stark very compelling. And if anyone would bother to read how Christianity became the dominant religion of the West, and also some core teaching of Christianity, this is the book I would suggest. N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God and Rodney Stark's The Rise of Christianity are probably the most significant books written on history of Christianity so far.

Stark underscored that an epidemic struck the Roman empire in 165 AD. And almost a century later, another epidemic struck the empire. From ancient sources, he recounted people's experience about the epidemic. So many people died. Many escaped to distant places leaving behind sick relatives to die. In the midst of such terrible situation, Christians stayed back to take care of each other and also those outside their fold. Taking care of each other during such times increased the chance of survival than being left alone. Stark's statistics is convincing. Here is just a small quote: “ In chapter I, I calculated that Christians made up about 0.4 percent of the empire's polulation at this time (160 AD), so let us suppose that 40 of this city's inhabitants are Christians, while 9960 are pagans – a ratio of 1 Christian to 249 pagans. Now, let us assume an epidemic generating mortality rates of 30 percent over its course in a population left without nursing. Modern medical experts cut the mortality rate by two-thirds or even more. So let us assume a Christian mortality rate of 10 percent. Imposing these mortality rates results in 36 Christians and 6972 pagans survivors in 170, after the epidemic. Now the ratio of Christians to Pagans is 1 to 197, a substantial shift.” And if we include those who would have converted during and after the crisis, the ratio could yield 1:134.

Another point Stark argued for was that Christians did not practice female infanticide and abortion, two very common practice in ancient Greco-Roman world. And over the years Christian women increased in number. And these Christian women, whenever they married Pagan men, often brought their husband to the Christian faith. And in almost all cases raised their children as Christian. And over the years, Christian population grew.

Earthquakes, fires, plagues, riots, invasion and other problems occurred at various points of history. And when such things did happen, the homeless and impoverished, the orphans and widows would fill the city. And considering that filth, insects and hygienic system were poorly maintained people did have short span then. Christian belief about charity for the poor, hope for the homeless, sense of family for the widows and orphans, shelter for the stranger etc revitalized the Greco-Roman social relationships.

The book is about 350 pages, and is published by HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins publisher. For Indian readers, you can order it from Flipkart at Rs. 682. I bought it from ebay and paid $14.95. But that was before Flipkart came into picture.

My New Year Resolution

Last Tuesday, 27^th December, 2011, with some of my relatives I drove down to Agra to see Taj Mahal. Having entered UP, we stopped at a toll gate to pay toll tax. In front of my car was a truck, and few more cars in front this truck. As I waited for my turn, this truck suddenly reversed without looking back. I blew the horn to indicate that there was a car behind. But before it could apply its brake, the headlight of my car and the bonnet damaged. As I got out of my car, I saw the driver exchanging seat with the senior driver. Probably this junior driver is an apprentice. I shouted at them to get down from their truck; they shouted back saying I should not have stopped my car so close to their truck. Well, I had maintained a gap of around 1 metre! Those who manned the toll gate came running to inquire; and as I explained to them what happened, the truck suddenly crossed the toll gate and sped away. I went after the truck, and forced them to stop. And I got into a heated quarrel with the truckers. Instead of other truckers saying that it was his fault, they all came to their rescue. One man said, without even asking what happened, 'had I driven slow I would not have hit the truck's bottom'.

Later I realised that shouting at those guys would not bring any positive result. They were not in a position to compensate monetarily nor would they admit their fault by being shouted at. I felt that I should have controlled my emotion and told them gently that if they were to reverse they should look back; and since they have already caused such damaged to my car, they should at least come down to apologize.

For some years I have been driving bikes and cars. Thankfully I have never got into any major accident with bike/car. I have read of people get into fight and people even getting killed after accident. But what's the point of getting angry? You don't solve the problem by getting angry. I don't think the issue in most cases is about monetary compensation. I think getting angry when someone hit your car is more of a culture than about some other reasons. Some people pass very unkind comment even when the bump is just a very light one. I think this is all unnecessary.

So my New Year resolution is that I shall not get angry when someone drive unto me rashly nor would I get into quarrel because of driving. I shall follow the golden rule “drive unto others as you want them drive unto you”. And whenever there is a hit, solve the matter gently!