Justice and Markets

"Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information, but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing, but, and here’s the risk: once the familiar turns strange, its never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence; however unsettling you find it, it can never be unthought, or unknown. "

That is how Professor Michael Sandel ends his first lecture on Justice, a Harvard course running for the past 20 years. If you haven't seen its lectures available online, I highly recommend that you do. In this post, I intend to discuss one particular topic Prof. Sandal talks about, that of Morality and Efficacy of Markets. No, we are not going to talk about economics, or debate free market vs regulated one. We will instead talk about moral value of things, and of markets. 

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product...if we should judge American by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. 

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. "

- John F. Kennedy, 1968

Prof Sandal might be considered old-school, in that his views are more strongly influenced by Archimedes theory of Telos, the end-purpose of things. Unlike theories of Utilitarianism(maximum good for maximum people) and Libertarian (rights of the individual), which are always at odds with one another and does not consider differences among people, societies and situations, the theory of Telos is applied always specifically to the situation at hand. It postulates that to determine the justice in any situation regarding an social institution, we must first decide what was the purpose of creation of that institution, what role it satisfies in society. 

Would you pay your child to learn? This would make it a more free-market situation, compared to coercing the activity out of her. But would you consider it amiss if I say something is lost, when you start rewarding activities which should be inherently pleasurable. How many of you have noticed that once your hobby becomes a more directly rewarding, it is not so pleasurable any more.

I do not know whether it is because of my upbringing or an individual choice (it doesn't matter), but my own views have started reflecting Prof Sandal's. To have a world where a life of meaning is still possible, we need to have a better look at what our institutions mean and stand for and what we are doing with them (big words, probably silly and precocious, but I let them be uttered).

What is the Telos of a business? I would like to believe it is 'to make money satisfying the needs of society'. But the public-company institution, by separating the owners and executioners, it is no-ones responsibility to look after the society. No-one is culpable. Marketers intend to 'create needs' and demand, rather than satisfying them.

Consider the Quota debate of IITs. The objectors lay a monomaniac emphasis on the impact quota will have on 'quality' of students. I am a supporter of affirmative action but in this case, the IITs have for too long and too loudly blown the trumpet of academic excellence and selecting the cream (and socially inept) of students through JEE. The government has been in on this. Hence my opinion is that the IIT directors and government as well as the general public, should have a common opinion of what the mission of IITs is, not what was written some 50 years ago, for have a peaceful debate. 

---------------------------

Most of us are firm believers of meritocracy. We believe that each of us should have equal opportunity to success in life and are pained that it is not so. However, even if a person, has equal opportunity, is he sufficiently equipped to access it? With prices of higher education and even good primary schools ever increasing, even a free job-market does not imply equal opportunity. 

But this is very basic reasoning. My question is, even if we receive equal preparation, and are renumarated according to our skill and determination, then, is it fair to say that, we deserve what we have? That we have earned it? That is a tricky question.

Shackled Thought

Lately, I have become obsessed with the 'mind' or the inner experience. Not the word 'mind' or the scientific literature (psychology/neurology/artificial intelligence) par se but the internal experience we have of it. In fact, it is not even clear whether I can say a thing like 'internal experience we have' as I can't define any sharp line between what we define to be ourselves and what we define as these internal experiences. I am thinking here of the first half Cartesian duality of soul/mind and body. The difference between knowing the light frequency corresponding to color 'red' and actually seeing the color red (I hope you follow). It is remarkable, we essentially live, exist, in our minds and yet we don't know anything about it. All we can do is match our emotions or thoughts to various regions of the neural network. But what of the qualitative, internal, experience, that 'I am ME'?

I should say I am heavily influenced by these very venerable people, just so you don't consider me the the next Wacko:

Tony Robbins (Motivation Speaker), Sam Harris, Chade-Meng Tan, Richard Davidson, Matthieu Ricard, Shelly Kagan, Paul Bloom, Dan Gilbert among others. 

I do believe there are different types of consciousness, we all experience the world differently (no way of verifying until we get the ability to hook up to other people's minds and experience what they are experiencing), and each one of us perceives the world in different ways at different life stages. Sometimes, I feel the children are the most awake of us, experiencing the world in a much richer fashion, and as we grow up, we live more in a synthetic experience created by the mind (as a result of our past experiences) than in the world surrounding us. 

There are definitely different ways to perceive the world, even limiting ourselves to the senses we have. Indians must perceive it differently than Americans, than French, than Chinese and likewise. We perceive it differently under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and I am talking of how you experience the world around you, not how you handle your own balance. 

Most of us see our 'self' as situated behind the eyes, looking at the world from that vantage point. Close your eyes, focus on your breathing, and that vantage point will shift to your nose. 

Personally, I think there was a time as a child when I used to experienced the world in 3D, being actually aware that a 'chair' in front of me exists. Nowadays the world feels more like just something I am seeing and processing, and I have to respond to. 

Modern science can pin-point which emotion or thought excites which part of the brain. This prompted Richard Davidson (Professor, Psychology) decides to take a Monk (Richard Mattieu) and another regular Joe, hooking up their brains to a brain scanner, and see their neural networks' response to various graphic images. The result: The centers in the brain associated with Happiness are triggered much more (several standard deviations more) in Matthieu Ricard. You want to be truly happy you say? Why not become a monk I say.

So the brain works analogous like the rest of the body. You need strength to lift weights, you lift weights to gain strength. Similarly, the neurons in the brain are responsible for your thoughts n emotions, and these neurons can be trained by just thoughts. Enter Meditation. The age old method of training your brain which most of us consider a quaint hobby. As a logical flow of this thought trail, I am trying to read more on it and practice meditation. Richard Davidson is convinced that by 2050 they will have enough scientific precise evidence backing Meditation, and it will be in the core curriculum of all schools (making the world a better place?).

I also believe that in explaining and developing these inner experience, the eastern and Indian civilizations have gone much further than the west. But since the topic is not easily explained, the eastern texts are not as easily accessible as the direct, explanatory texts of western philosophy. Like the chicken and egg problem, Indians (including me) also always strive for a western acceptance of their own traditions(like yoga) and so these texts remain unexplained, in colloquial language which people like me, modern college grads might get. 

In a way, our 'mind' is an entire universe, with its own rules, entities and existence. Who says a universe should have physical dimensions? 

In the end, it is all about figuring out 'What am I?', which has to be answered before 'What is death?'. 

Is it not silly that we are focusing so much on our outside world, what we achieve and how the people perceive us, when the inner self remains a mystery?

On a related note, one thing the MBA had given me is an elevated respect and cognizance for the omnipresent human-institutions which exist only in thought, but determine how the world is run. We accept and learn these institutions by imitation, looking at how other people are behaving and what is acceptable. For example, railway is a technology, but without a ticketing and reservation system, concept of train stations, it would be for naught. Similarly, concept of buying-selling, of property rights. Just sitting here writing this post, I am an 'employee' of some 'company', a 'citizen' of a 'country', with an over-arching 'government' maintaining some 'law'. I am connected to support groups, of my family, friends, colleagues, batch-mates, countrymen. All this is necessary for existence, survival and meaning. But this also means, that we will never experience the 'state of nature', of what it means to be creatures, individuals, just living beings, in this universe. 

Maybe I am over-dramatizing. But that is why I am writing this blog so I can get feedback on my views and questions.