10 Books That Influence Me the Most Recently

From time to time I thought of the books that influenced me the most. And as new books are read, I realised the old ones are elbowed out by the newers ones. It's not always that the ideas in the older books or those books I read years back have become outdated or that they have lost their value. It so happens that new ideas are being added on to the older ideas and so the relevance of the ideas to my life changed.  Even some of these newer ones will too be elbowed out few years down the line by other books. But sometimes the old ones remain. I won't say that newer books are better than the older book though sometimes that could be true! The books are not listed in term of order of their value to my life.

1.  God's That Fail ( by Vinoth Ramachandra, a nuclear scientist turned Bible teacher/author. ) 

2. What's So Amazing About Grace ( by Philip Yancey, a journalist turned author) 

3. What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limit of Market ( by Michael Sandel, a Harvard Professor of Philosophy) 

4. The Rise of Christianity ( by Rodney Stark, a Professor of Sociology at Baylor University) 

5. Evolution or Creation: Do We Have to Choose? ( by Denis Alexander, a Biologist and Prof. Emeritus of Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St. Edmund College, Cambridge University) 

6. Surprised by Hope ( by N T Wright, Prof. New Testament and Early Christianity at University of St. Andrews) 

7. This Jesus ( by Markus Bockmuehl, a Prof of New Testament, Cambridge University) 

8. Development as Freedom ( by Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in Economics) 

9. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? ( by Michael Sandel, a Harvard Professor of Philosophy) 

10. Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis ( by William Webb, a former Prof. of New Testament at Heritage Seminary)

* John Stott is no more. But I would attribute to his writing that spark the desire in me to begin reading. And  I would attribute to Mathew Varghese ( UESI) and Vinoth Ramachandra ( IFES) who moulded me in my spiritual and intellectual life.

Gay Sex, Freedom and Common Good

Given that the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of India with regard to gay sex has generated much controversy, the essay attempts to explore a moral and political perspective of a concerned citizen. To this end, the essay makes a distinction between moral norm and legal system of a given society, which is followed by a brief rehearse of the history of the subject matter. The essay ends by making a distinction between the need to decriminalize an action which does not necessarily have to lead onto legalization of the same action. 

Moral norm vs. Legal system.

In the absence of any moral law, human society will descend into chaos. Moral law is an essential element for a flourishing human society. There are certain human actions which will find a general consensus about their moral nature. Rape or murder are examples generally agreed to be evil by rational minds. Thus rape or murder are actions where moral disapproval have been codified in the legal system of a given nation-state. This is a situation where moral norm of a given society is in congruency with the legal system of the same society.

The moral disapproval of an action of an agent, however, is not always in congruency with the legal system of a given society. This is to mean that an action may be considered immoral yet it may not be codified as unlawful or illegal by that given society. This is because the codified legal system of any given society cannot incorporate and inquire into every aspect of human action. For example, a priest who demands rupees fifty thousand as fee or wage for solemnizing a marriage may be considered greedy and immoral. But the legal system would be incompetent in dealing such a matter. The legal system would also be silent on consensual fornication or adultery between two adults; or for that matter on heavy petting between two unmarried adult lovers. Yet these are actions that would be considered morally disgraceful in Indian sub-continent. These examples thus seek to underscore that there are times when moral norms of a society does not always get codified into the legal system of that given society; legal system stops short of reaching to that extent moral norm sometime would extend to.

Freedom and Section 377 of IPC

In the second half of the 19th century the colonial power criminalized homosexual act, not homosexual urge. It means that anyone engaging in such act would be punished under the law. Independent India continues to maintain the law until today. In 2006, Vikram Seth, a noted author wrote an open letter, which was signed many intellectual figures and social activists, seeking support for the decriminalization of “consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex.” The letter urges readers to collectively fight against human right abuse and restraint upon individual freedom. In a separate letter Nobel laureaute Amartya Sen too came out in support of Seth, arguing that section 377 of the Indian Penal Code stifles human freedom and thus go against the notion of human right.

Freedom and human right have become two important categories in contemporary discourse on moral and political philosophy. Human right is considered to be that inherent right every individual possesses by virtue of being a member of human species. This right is not given by the state to its citizen; and is unlike the legal right given by the state to the citizen. Human right thus comes under the special category of right since state does not grant it, and therefore state is not entitled to take it away. The result of such endowment entails that any assault on this given aspect of right is an assault on his or her human-ness; human right abuse is to render a person sub-human.

Given this understanding, I think, it is a mistake to argue for decriminalization of gay sex by appealing to the notion of human right. It is hard to conceive of the idea of a person possessing inherent right to have an adult sexual partner of his choice. It is equally hard to imagine how outlawing a particular type of sexual preference amounts to assaulting a person’s humanity. One can put the matter this way: does it amount to dehumanizing him – making him sub-human, when he is not allowed to have consensual sexual acts with a person of same sex? I would answer this question in negative. If sexual act is a subject matter of human right, then one would be led to consider that willful celibates have chosen to dehumanize themselves. And since dehumanizing oneself is not a virtuous act, institutions and society must intervene to end this status. It would be very hard to defend the logical entailment of such a thought position on human sexuality.

It is one thing to argue for decriminalization of homosexual act in the name of human right; it is another thing to argue for it in the name of freedom. Freedom to perform any action that harms others or involves coercing another moral agent necessitates restraint from the concerned authority as well. However, consensual sex between adults of same sex does not necessarily involve apparent harming of any party. Considering that even fornication or adultery between consensual adults does not invite criminalization, it sounds fair to argue that homosexual act between consenting adults too should not be criminalized. This does not mean that homosexual act would be morally permissible in any given society just as adultery or fornication may not be morally permissible. Any given society may or can continue to regard these acts as immoral, but these acts do not necessarily have to invite penalization from the legal point of view.

The empirical advantage for having decriminalized the act would be that homosexuals who have contracted HIV/AIDS too can come out and seek medical help. As of today a significant number of HIV/AIDS patient are apprehensive of seeking medical for fears of being prosecuted by the law keepers.

Gay Sex and Common Good

As it is happening in the West, few decades after having homosexual act decriminalized, it is conceivable that gays will seek to legal recognition of their relationship. They will come out and argue that the law recognizes their union, which means that the given society shows respect, affirms and celebrates their union like any other marital union of the heterosexuals. It is one thing to argue for decriminalization; it is another thing to argue for legalization!

As of today the general consensus about the legal definition of marriage is between one male and one female. This is the pattern of practice which is being affirmed and honored. One may argue that the definition of marriage gets expanded to include ‘one male and another male or one female and another female’. Similarly, one may as well argue that the definition gets more inclusive and makes room for polygamy and polyandry too. Furthermore, it is not implausible to imagine that certain people will argue for the inclusion of ‘one female and one dog or one male and one dog’ in the definition of marriage.

Discourse on marriage and the legalisation of gay sex are not therefore entirely unrelated. The question that we need to deliberate as a society is what kind of marital arrangement we must legally recognize, honour and celebrate. Can we allow any conceivable union to come under the definition of marriage or do we circumscribe a definition of marriage and say that within this understanding we want our society to function? Since legalisation is about affirming an action, and criminalisation disavowing the same, legalisation of gay sex would have a far reaching consequences on the moral limit of this practice. And to determine the moral nature of this action, one plausible thing to do is to ask the function of a marriage. Is marriage a love union of two people or is marriage a love union of two people with potential ground for procreation? If marriage is about a love union of two people, gay sex fits the bill too. But if marriage entails a possible ground for procreation as well, gay sex does not fit the function of a marriage. State should not legalize an action which fails to do the job that it possibly is meant to fulfill. After all the legal system has been framed to enable citizens to cultivate the virtuous actions as habits too.

Conclusion

A practising Christian may pray that all tribes and tongues confess that Jesus is Lord. Similarly, a philosopher who is convinced that her school of thought is right and good may wish that everyone thinks like she does. However, in this side of reality where God given free will is to be honoured, Christian moral and political consideration has to make room for an individual to reject or accept Jesus Christ and his moral teaching. Unless an action of any moral agent involves harming someone, it is prudent not to legally criminalize an action of anyone so that an individual may be able to exercise his or her freedom to do things he or she has reason to do. My opinion is therefore on the side of decriminalising homosexual act. Yet an action should not be affirmed and honoured legally if, by choice, it fails to perform the purpose that it is to perform. Therefore, I take side with those who argue that homosexual union should not be legally recognized as marriage by the state. Homosexual union does not engender common good since it fails to serve the purpose of a marital union. 

( This article appeared on the 22nd of February, 2014 at Hueiyen Lanpao. The link is available here. )

The Moral Texture of Money Distribution in Election

The article is to be situated in the context of the general election being held in the country. As the election process progresses, there emerges news items from different parts of the country about different political parties indulging in various immoral and illegal practices to garner votes to be in power. Liquor, cash, unlicensed guns etc. are seized from almost every major political parties. There is no party that is holy; every party has fallen short of the standard set by Election Commission of India (ECI). It is just a matter of common sense that only a few of the sins are caught and exposed. Like an iceberg, the bigger chunk of the load of illegal and immoral activities are hidden from the public view. 

Election in a state such as India is a necessary and an ambitious exercise. To that end ECI has recently raised the expenditure limit to Rs. 70 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs for parliamentary constituencies and assembly constituencies respectively for a state such as Manipur. Unfortunately, the money spent by candidates of almost all the parties would easily crossed the limit far far more. This is true of both the parliamentary election as well as assembly election. This excessive use of money is one of the chief reasons that has damaged the reputation of politics in general and election in particular. It has become a kind of a set pattern to buy voters. Everyone knows that buying votes is illegal and it goes against the basic ethos of electoral politics. Yet, hardly any party major political parties are clean. The more money a party has, the wider it casts its monetary net to gain voters. Buying voters is immoral too. It is immoral because election are supposed to be contested on the basis of candidates' merits and what the party could fulfil in term of governance in case it comes to power. And distributing money distorts the very definition of democratic election. Candidates who purchase voters , therefore, are using unfair means to get elected. Period.

The voters who took money in exchange for her vote too is wrong. Even if the money was distributed, the voter need not take it. This is a knotty situation specially for those voters who live from hand to mouth. It is quite comprehensible if one is tempted to take the money thinking that one vote may not matter much given that there are several lakhs of voters. And particularly when all the potential winners are going to be equally inefficient for the society at large, a poor peasant might contemplate taking a few hundred rupees from a candidate or from the candidate who gives the most and then act on it in form of voting for the same candidate. However, the thrust of the legal and moral demand would imply that the voter too is a party to the malpractice.  Given this kind of reality one must appreciate those voters who were able to say no to money. And this refusal to take money in exchange for vote is something that the larger section of society must learn to replicate.

The question that demands attention at this point of rampant practice of buying votes is to ask if those who have taken money from a candidate are morally obliged to vote for the one from whom they have taken money. In a given society, if a person has borrowed money from a friend or a relative, then there is a moral obligation to return the money in due course of time. Does this kind of  moral binding press upon a voter who has taken money from a candidate?  The answer is no. In the former case there is a written or an unwritten contract between the two parties that the money would be returned in due course of time. There is thus a moral obligation to honour the explicit or implicit contract. Moreover, failure to honour the contract would lead to a breach of trust and social discord. Therefore, in the greater good of the society, the moral obligation to return the borrowed money has to be in place. In the latter situation – where a voter is 'purchased' by a candidate – there is no explicit contract to vote for the candidate. Even if there is an implicit contract, there is no ground to suppose that violation of the contract would lead to greater social disorientation. In fact, giving money to the voters has led to greater social disorientation and corruption. On the contrary, if there is a widespread practice of violation of such implicit contract, the candidates would eventually be compelled to think that money cannot win over the voters' heart and mind. The candidates would in fact be compelled to perform and deliver the moral duty due of him or her. Therefore, given this negative effect of giving money to the voters and the positive effect that would emerge if voters refuse to vote for the candidate from whom they have taken money, it is more rational and morally prudent to underscore that a voter is not under moral obligation to vote for the candidate from whom he or she has taken money.

This is not to say "take money, but don't vote for the one who gave you the money". The actual emphasis is on "don't give money & don't take money".  But there is an additional line –  "don't take money; but even if you take money you don't have to feel obligated to vote for the one who gives you money" – to provide  as cushion to fight the  unfair way of using money power during election. It is rather to achieve an end which is good , which is to make the power of money to buy voter redundant.

NB: This article appeared on the 20th of April 2014 at Hueiyen Lanpao. The link is available here.

Private Money Lending and its Moral Limit

The absence of robust financial institutions in the state has led to the thriving of private money lenders in the state. The state is also yet to notice the widespread effect of micro-financing companies lending their weight in helping the small borrowers come out from the tyranny of the private money lenders. Thus it is not without reason that in a desperate situation, there are many of those who borrow from private money lenders at a rate of 90% -120% or even upto 150% per annum. At such an astronomically high rate of interest, there is a great need to critique the present lending pattern. 

Given that the legal system is not adequate to address such concern of the high number of needy borrower, the larger political community needs to maintain a moral norm to set the prevailing condition right. And this moral consciousness has to emerge from within the community to become part of the public consciousness. And it is to that end that this article attempts to articulate and argue for. 

The usual argument to justify such a free-market economic practice is to say that since there are borrowers, the lenders just give them the money. One further argues that none really compels any needy borrowers to come forward, but it so happens that supplies at such a high interest rate flourishes only because there are demands. This kind of argument hides behind the principle that supply-demand is what really matters; there is no reason for moral norms to come into play in such a domain. This kind of reasoning can be countered by two independent arguments – first, the fairness argument; second, the corruption argument.

The fairness argument would go this way. Those who borrow money at such a high interest rate are indeed in a desperate economic situation. They might have been brought to such a low situation due to certain ill health in the family or crop failure or some condition of that sort. Had it been possible to come out of their pathetic affair without having to borrow from the private lenders, they would be so happy to do so. However, having run out of all kinds possible means to repair the damage without having to turn to the private money lenders, they scramble their way through the private money lenders.  It is only in such desperate moments that they are compelled to borrow at such a high interest rate. Therefore, those lenders who are charging high interest rate in such a situation is actually taking advantage of someone's helplessness, someone's desperate condition. Thus, it is not really fair to take advantage of someone's helpless moments. Though a lender may want to wriggle his or her way out of this logical outcome, the fairness argument cannot really be disentangled from the action of the private money lender. If one's action directly leads on to piling up the misery of others, one must bear the moral consequence.

The second argument appeals to the end purpose of lending. It goes about that as a member of a particular social and political community; it is a duty of each person to help one another. Even if one does not want to help anyone as such; or even if he is a miser of the worst kind, by virtue of being a part of the community, this is one kind of a moral obligation that comes along by virtue of being part of the community. This fact is acknowledged even by the private lenders themselves. Private lenders would further agree that the lending of money is to help the needy person, not to really exploit the borrower or add more misery to his already heavy financial baggage; nor is lending purely for profit alone.  However, when interest rate is just so high, the substantive reason of lending money to help the needy ones is damaged. Instead of helping the needy ones, more misery is added unto the borrower. This kind of practice thus corrupts the purpose of lending money to the needy ones. If there is anyone who considers that lending money is purely for profit alone, then such a person requires a change of attitude. The kind of society where selfishness reigns and the obligation to help the needy ones is pushed out of boundary is not what we should be building. A society thrives and leads on to further flourishing when members of the political community cares for one another and the moral obligation that comes along with the members are honoured. 

Banks usually lend money at a rate of 12%-20% per annum, depending on the kind of banks and the nature of loan. Per month it comes to roughly one rupee or little more. Considering this figure, the current figure charged by private lenders in general is way too high. It cripples the poor man's economy. This is nothing short of a selfish and mean character on the part of the private lenders. Lenders should not charge an interest rate higher than 2%-2.5% per month; which comes to 24%-30% per annum. The value and beauty of solidarity have to be arrested before further deterioration. A society that has completely degenerated will take ages to heal. Moral degradation is not just about getting into adultery or drug; it includes wearing away of virtues such as friendship, community bond etc. Unless we remain vigilant, the love for money will tear into our age old social and political fabric and destroy the community from within. This attack from the love of money can be very dangerous because it can be so subtle unlike drug abuses or adultery or murder which everybody considers as vices.

NB: The article appeared on 30th March, 2014 at Hueiyen Lanpao. The link is available here.

 

Harassing a Girl From the North-East

The video is a demonstration that many people are not bothered even when someone from the North East is harassed. Yet, there are also those who think otherwise!