Oh My God….

I happened to watch this movie “Gone Baby Gone” recently. The story line is about a kidnapping which is shrouded in mystery. A private detective, the protagonist, who is hired to help out the investigation, finds out that the kidnapper is none other than the just-retired, honorable sheriff who had lost his child in a conflict and very badly wanted to father a child.

On the other hand, the kidnapped child’s natural mother is addicted to drugs and cannot care for her daughter. However, since her daughter’s kidnapping she has shown signs of becoming a more responsible person.

The core of the movie is the dilemma which the protagonist faces once he uncovers the truth.

The investigator is faced with a dilemma as to whether he should hand over the child to her mother who might not care for her or to leave her with the sheriff who will love, care and provide for her until she becomes an adult.

What should the protagonist do?

A video shot by National Geographic during an African safari gives us this scenario – a calf was attacked by 4 lion cubs which had the calf in their hold. There were around 50 African bison, which stood helpless and were about to witness the death of the little calf. The guards and crew of National Geographic also watched the incident but had guns in their hand! They could fire in the air and disperse the cubs and release the little calf or be mere spectators!

What should the guards and crew do?

Here’s another example, which many of you can probably could relate to:

A senior manager of a large MNC quit his job and started off on his own. The top executives in that MNC were his mentors, ex-bosses and good friends. A new assignment comes up in the MNC and they invite proposals from firms. This senior manager who has branched off on his own also participates in the process. He is aware of the project, the company culture and all other nuts and bolts which are required for successful completion of the work. Also his rates are low and nowhere near to his rivals. He charges actual + a thin margin as he doesn’t have to incur other sales and marketing costs. The proposal is otherwise professional. The top executives understand that the reason behind a strong proposal from their ex-colleague is his thorough knowledge of the company’s internals.

Should the top executives award him the contract or should they set aside his proposal and evaluate other proposals?

During one of my meetings at the Toastmasters’ Club, a very experienced toastmaster for 16 years delivered a fantastic speech. During the same meeting, there was a new member presenting his first speech as the icebreaker! He also did a good job but nothing in comparison to the experienced toastmaster. At the end of the session people voted for the best speaker. No marks for guessing. It was the experienced toastmaster. When he went on stage he offered to give the award to the new member who delivered the icebreaker speech.

The winner’s conscience did not permit him to accept the award. Was he right in going against the collective wisdom of the crowds?

When I reflect on certain incidents, statements and behavior of my friends, family and colleagues, I realize that most of their time and energy are spent on following the dictates of their conscience. I am no different, I too have been there, seen it and done it!

We all have spent quite a bit of time and energy in justifying our acts and words in one way or another. This compulsive need to be guided by our conscience takes a toll on human energy. We feel depressed when we are seen to be arrogant or inconsiderate, but feel elated when perceived otherwise.

We not only want to do the right things but also seen to be doing the right things. Is this necessary? Should we not keep it simple and say that it is all a perception issue. After all, the post-modern theory which is in vogue is that of “situational ethics” where the sense of right or wrong is relative to the situation. Tolerance is the key and any form of intolerance is considered sacrilegious. So, why bother about proving to the world that we heed our conscience? Let us regard others’ take on the situation as perceptional and opinionated and move on! But, something told me that this is not “right”!

I did some research to understand the root cause for all the decisions we make in situations like the ones mentioned above. As usual the research has taken me more than a month, raised quite a few questions, including the very existence of God! The final destination or the root-cause, I settled for was – the universal truth! The book The New Tolerance, by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler was the clincher that adjudicated my internal debate between situational ethics and universal truth/God and delivered the judgment in favor of the existence of universal truth and God!

The debate was well-structured by the authors of the article. Hence, I would like to cite them throughout the argument.

They say that whenever people encounter situations as presented above, if they were to apply “situational ethics” vis-à-vis “comparison to universal truth”, the world would be led into a subjective mentality of “whatever feels good”, which could have a devastating effect on the society.

What is “good” or “right” to you may be “bad” or “wrong” to someone else!

So, on the question of existence of absolute truth they conclude, “…If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if 2 + 2 did not always equal 4…What a mess that would be, but thankfully 2 + 2 does equal 4. There is absolute truth and it can be found and understood…”

To further cement their argument on absolute truth, they present pieces of evidence for the existence of absolute truth and hence God!

“Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that within us that tells us the world should be a “certain way,” and that some things are “right” and some are “wrong.”

The second pointer is science…”Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities that exist in the world and that these realities can be discovered and proven…”

The third issue for consideration “… All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind’s desire for something more than simple existence…”

The authors also present interesting arguments against the atheist camps! They say that, if one were to claim absolutely that “God does not exist” then, the claim is itself fundamentally flawed. The claim of atheists is based on their “absolute knowledge or truth that God does not exist” which is contradictory to their belief that there is no “absolute truth”!

In conclusion, the authors’ state, “And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth…”

Though the “universal truths” are generally accepted and recognized as the official formula of ethics and morals, they have come to be debatable in our post modern society. Not long ago, slavery, racism or discrimination in any form, family planning, abortion, euthanasia, gay and transsexual rights were taken for granted and treated as non-issues, prohibited topics and were consistently ignored. Today, the voices have grown stronger and effected some action.

Does this mean our society is weaning away from the universal truth and is following “situational ethics” or the principles of “cultural relativism” which we discussed above? The answer in my opinion is, No! The society is learning to be more tolerant and become more inclusive! The society wants these issues listed above to be added to the realm of universal truths! That way we can develop a sustainable society which is tolerant and inclusive.

In essence, there is a certain right or wrong, good or bad and it is judged against the universal truth which has been given to mankind by the Creator. We need to accept the fact that we are accountable for what we say and do. This means that we cannot apply the logic of situational ethics and get away with our words and deeds. I am not suggesting that we should explain and defend every act and deed of ours, but just that we need to be conscious of our behavior and if we realize (internally) that there is a scope for improvement, we should endeavor to do so!

I would like to conclude with this true story. The conflict in Bosnia and Serbia left thousands dead. It was one of the worst ethnic cleansings in recent times. The international community, UN and a team of scientists are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to put together sets of 208 bones from different mass graves just to identify those who are dead and prove to the culprits that there is evidence of who was murdered and hence prosecute the murderers for their crime.

The international community, could easily prosecute the culprits as the whole world knows who committed the crimes, and give the hundreds of millions of dollars to Africa and help alleviate poverty there. But is it the right thing to do? No, every person who is charged needs a chance to be proven innocent or guilty as charged and punished accordingly. By spending the millions we could bring some respect back to the dead and their surviving families in a sense that, even after death, there is someone who will fight for justice and ensure that it is delivered to the survivors.

This ability to rationalize and internalize is a trait unique to human beings. It is not to be found among other forms of life. The rationalization will work only when we believe in a superior universal truth.

This ability to rationalize and internalize is according to me – God!