Veiled Matters

[poovanna]

Hello, all!

Its been a long time. I hope you guys are doing well.
I'm doing great - have settled into a comfortable, daily routine involving work + fun. Because of this, I'm left with far less time than I would have liked to spend @ LJ.

I thought I might change this by writing about some interesting discussions I've had with my friends over these months. But my:

• writing is rusty; &
• memory is unreliable.

My friend Amoolya kindly volunteered to collaborate with me on this post, despite disagreement on some ideas (Thanks, Amool! You rock!).

I think its impossible to capture the intensity & free flow of ideas present in a real life debate into a blog post - And I'm not even going to try! :) The best I'm hoping for, is to summarize key ideas from several debates. I do think these ideas are sufficiently interesting to be discussed even in (an arguably inferior) written medium like this one. Thus, if you have an opinion, I'd be very happy if you'd share it with me!

Here, we present one summarizing example that touches upon the following 3 questions:

• How to measure Free Will?;
• What is the purpose of education?; &
• How to build a free society?

I've constructed this simple example solely as a memory aid - to help me remember some arguments I've had with my friends on said issues. Obviously, it doesn't give a complete picture of said issues, which are too complex.

Summarizing Example:
A female is denied access into a building because she is wearing a dress which violates the law. Her dress is not unusual & is characteristic to female followers of a particular religion. However, her country passed a law which bars public wearing of this dress, because the population majority views it to be discriminatory & oppressive to women.

Sub-case 1:

1. The female is an adult;
2. The building is a government office.

Here, the female objects against the law because she feels it is against her right to:

• practice her religion; &
• chose the clothes she wears.

It is difficult to give a clear judgment in this matter. This is because its possible that she may have been coerced by other male religious members. It is also possible that she has freely chosen in this matter. The best we can do is to come up with only a probability that it was a free choice. We can do this by using the `Capability Approach.' For instance, if her nation gives womenfolk adequate employment opportunities (and thus, be less dependent on men) & equal property/land rights as men, then there is less chance that her actions are coerced. If on the other hand, she lived in a nation with a poor record on these metrics, then its harder to believe that her actions were free.

Sub-case 2:

1. The female is a minor;
2. The building is a school;
3. The nation also has a law which says every child has a right to an education.

Here, the parents of the child object to the dress law on the grounds that:

• denying entry into the school leads to a violation in the child's right to education; &
• it violates the parents right to teach their children their cherished religious values.

Again, giving a clear judgement on this issue is almost impossible. But an argument can be made that the child must attend school without wearing the dress, on the grounds that when it comes to education of minors, the child's interests lie above those of her parents. So, though parents are welcome to impart their religious values to their children, once the child attains the age of majority, she must be able to make her choice on religion & other life matters, freely. This is only possible if she is exposed to the secular environment of the school, where she will encounter children & teachers who subscribe to other viewpoints & religions. Merely, giving adults the freedom to practice their religion is not enough to ensure a free society - not when exposure to contrary viewpoints is denied during their formative years.

An example of this is the Amish practice of `Rumspringa.' All their lives, Amish kids are zealously guarded against influences outside their commune. But upon attaining the age of 16, they are given the opportunity to spend 1 year outside in the `big, bad, outside world.' A year later, they can chose to come back to their religion or live as outsiders. It is a false choice, which gives an illusion of being free. This is because most of these kids cannot adjust to the outside world & invariably return to the community flock. No surprise that the return rate averages around 90%.

Sub-case 3:

1. The female is a minor;
2. The building is a school;
3. The nation also has a law which says every child has a right to an education.

This case has the same conditions as the previous one. However, here the minor's parents attempt to pull her out of school & home-school her. They contend that they are exercising their rights as parents to teach kids their values (by shielding the child from the corrupting influence of secular schools), while not violating the child's right to a decent education. They are doing this by:

• teaching her from state-sanctioned textbooks; &
• allowing her to attend state certified exams at the end of the school year & get her diploma.

An example of this is parents who believe in Creationism, home-schooling their kids from state-sanctioned textbooks which mention Evolution. Seems like a good compromise solution on the surface. But is it?

To counter this reasoning we can use an idea by the philosopher J.S Mill, from his book `On Liberty.' The idea is that in order to build a free society it is not enough that citizens or future citizens merely be aware of contrarian views (or in this case just read them from textbooks); they must hear those views being articulated by its most ardent defenders.

Thus, a parent who is deeply invested in a particular belief is not likely to give a spirited defense against attacks on other beliefs. As a result, a child is less likely to appreciate the true strengths of other viewpoints & thus make a free, informed choice on life matters upon reaching adulthood. There is less chance of this happening when she attends a public school - where she will be exposed to educators/students who subscribe to contrarian beliefs & can defend them using extremely strong/persuasive arguments.

Conclusion
In closing, Amool thinks:
It is essential to instill in ourselves, a free mind and spirit of enquiry. A mind that can think for itself, question the old institution, practices and rules and be receptive to new ideas, can break away from the conditioning implanted in us since birth. This helps bring out the individual in us. Such individuals alone can overhaul the existing political and social patterns and bring about changes to eradicate prejudices against the weak and man-made barriers like religion.

What about me? Well, I mostly agree with her, except that I don't think promoting individualism is the answer - I think society already has too much of that. People have become a lot less radical & are less moved by external issues nowadays, & I think this is bad. Why? Maybe I could discuss it in a future post because I think it would take us too far afield of the current discussion.