Greyscale

On morality, nature, and the uncomfortable spaces between good and evil

"Ki-taek: 'They are rich but still nice.'
Chung-sook, Ki-taek's wife: 'They are nice because they're rich.'" Film: Parasite (2019)

It is a fairly old saying that there is more to it than it meets the eye. About the eye we can verify, it is the brain we should sweat about. The most multiplex machine known to us throughout the universe — the human brain — warrants some respect more than to reduce its output to two adjectives: good and evil. And even though it has been the sole cause for every anthropogenic disaster that has ever happened throughout history, we will act on what we are about to preach forward in the blog — forgive.

Queries that flow out of the previous paragraph would hinge on two keywords — anthropogenic and forgiveness: Is the human brain the only one capable of brewing disasters? Is it only animals that deserve unconditional forgiveness/neglect for the disasters they commit? Does capital punishment make moral, practical, and ethical sense? Is there a final solution and more?

We shall explore what makes a man a man because, as it goes:

"As a man thinketh, he doeth and as he doeth, he is."

Part 1: The Personal Dilemma, Butter Chicken and a Bit of Pinker

Having grown up in a devout Hindu family, vegetarianism was always a major pivot point of philosophy, almost as if you could devour moralities of entire civilizations and beliefs about the fact if they liked or even survived consuming meat.

Like all families in the world, some members follow their beliefs to the last word, some occasionally to suit their purposes and gain the best that religion offers, some simply just let it be, and some, like me — rebel.

All men in my family are avid meat enjoyers, women on the contrary are abhorrent meat shunners — they sniff it inside their kitchens or find that greasy gravy anywhere on their utensils and you can expect a major civil war brewing. For all the rebellion I have put up against my mother and grandmother, whom I consider being near-ideal Hindus, the one case where I cannot satisfactorily rest my case is justifying consuming meat. Make no mistakes. There is hardly any opportunity where I relinquish my desire to consume an aromatic, juicy piece of kebab or a fried chicken wing, but there is always a guilt post consumption.

The prima donna argument to loathe meat eaters (which I am sure many meat eaters themselves loathe about themselves, and many non-vegetarians unaware of the ways modern slaughterhouses and butchers go about when harvesting meat from animals would, if they come to know about it) usually is to help them reiterate and visualize the sufferings animals go through when they are shocked to faint in slaughterhouses, many do not lose their consciousness even then as the sharp blades simply pass through their sensitive necks and they lose heaps of blood, all whilst feeling excruciating pain.

"I would like to be a vegetarian. I would like everybody to be a vegetarian. In 100 or 200 years' time, we may look back on the way we treated animals today as something like we today look back on the way our forefathers treated slaves." Richard Dawkins

A famous tale from when I was a kid comes to mind — about a major Hindu deity, Krishna, saving a cow Bahula from getting devoured by a tiger, who was ensured by the cow that she would return to be eaten if allowed to feed her calf with her milk. The calf, upon hearing this from its mother, let go of its meal and joined her. Krishna suddenly appears there and saves them by bringing about a change in the tiger's heart.

As emotionally wrenching as the story is and the way it does for you to immediately side with the cow and think of the equally desperate for survival and hungry tiger as evil is uncalled for and shows how flawed perceptions rule the world, we just live in it. The tiger didn't choose to be a carnivore. Neither did the virus choose to be parasitic. Nature doesn't do morality — we imposed that framework.

So, I used to ask (sort of argue) my parents about the absolute suffering with the carnivore/omnivore way of the diet — is it any worse if I ask a butcher to cut me open a chicken, which he does as humanely as possible as a bear tearing open a fish alive, first to relish the crispy and salty skin then cut it in half, alive, again to finish it?

The ultimate answer to this dilemma would always depend on the one being eaten, but again, in the grand scheme of order, does that matter? Help that little rabbit the next time you sense a python is en route to ingest it alive and halt that python from ever eating an animal again and see how far along you get without feeling guilt and remorse for being the reason that blameless snake dies just because your (our) flawed — and fallacious brain could not come to terms with reality. Grey scale — that which makes you human also makes you a beast.

As far as you would find, the answer would always be a resounding 'no'. Such is life and such is the planet and universe by extension. We will further expand on this 'no' further ahead in the blog.

Our species is at a little hopeful by default, for who cannot hope for better, achieve anything in life? It is a psychological necessity for a society to be optimistic, to dream big. Or falter and fumble with all that you have. As with everything, nothing comes without its caveats.

Part 2: The Cousins

It is implied, and rightly so, that humans know and act better than animals, for we have a more complex, nuanced and emotionally capable processing unit up inside our skulls, but this suggestion doesn't account for the errors and the variations. It takes the examples of the best(?) of our species, anatomical beasts and mental gladiators and applies it as a deemed necessary model for peace and morality(?) of a utopian society.

The apes: I am confident that most people have come across videos showcasing incredible feats performed by orangutans, chimpanzees, and other large apes on the internet like recognizing themselves in mirrors, orangutans solving complex puzzles, gorillas using sign language and/or a chimpanzee using tools. Equally perplexing and astonishing is the fact that parrots talk.

On first glance, you would think these qualities are inherently human. An animal expert, evolutionary biologist or a psychologist would tell you otherwise: to term these qualities as human and say others learnt it from us does a disservice to evolution.

With great apes (such as chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans), they share a common ancestor with humans and have similar genetic and anatomical characteristics. Over time, as species diverged, they developed their own unique traits and behaviors. While some behaviors observed in great apes may bear some resemblance to human-like traits, it is important to recognize that these behaviors are products of their own evolutionary history. We share roughly 98.7% of our DNA with chimpanzees. The remaining 1.3% accounts for language, abstract thought, and the invention of nuclear weapons. Make of that what you will.

With parrots, mimicking and imitating sounds, including human speech, is a behavior that comes naturally to them. High-level communicators, parrots are intelligent birds with unique vocalizations. They can imitate and pick up sounds from their surroundings, including those of other birds and people, thanks to their vocal learning abilities.

Does this suggest a continuity between human and animal brains? Perhaps it does. As we enter the final phase of this chapter while trying to answer the questions we initially asked ourselves: although it might not be, and most probably is not the straight cut answer it is expected to be, but we could very well take hints and cues from — yes, there appears to be continuity between us, from the farthest to the closest evolutionary cousins. There is a common underlying reason to what we do and why we do. We may be the monarchs of the pale blue dot, but we steal, maul others, take sadist pleasures off the stupidest reasons, rape and also take care of our people, just like the hundreds of thousands of species.

Part 3: The Man, The Math & Mother Nature's Massacre

"How can we distinguish what is biologically determined from what people merely try to justify through biological myths? A good rule of thumb is 'Biology enables, culture forbids.' Biology is willing to tolerate a very wide spectrum of possibilities. It's culture that obliges people to realize some possibilities while forbidding others. Culture tends to argue that it forbids only that which is unnatural. But from a biological perspective, nothing is unnatural. Whatever is possible is by definition also natural. A truly unnatural behavior, one that goes against the laws of nature, simply cannot exist." Yuval Noah Harari (Edited)

Everywhere you go, you see pain and prosperity. Okay, a lot of pain and a lot of prosperity. But what moves you more? I am guessing it would be pain. Look around you and around the history section of a library; the difference in the quality of life today vs back then is mammoth. We are perhaps witnessing the best era of our history and also the most peaceful. Living the most comfortable, luxurious and safer than ever before. Akbar would die to live today; it is this good.

But it almost feels delinquent writing this as it was only today that I saw tens of ultra poor people struggling to make ends meet. Drinking pesky water, breathing black air — coalesced with the sooty exhaust of truck pipes and sleeping on burning hot asphalt concrete.

One could (and often should) blame this on poor governance, capitalism-communism-socialism, evil, deviated acts of Satan and, as you please; the list could go on for as long and deep as they like and I assure you in hindsight and micro, there will always be another culprit — permutations and combinations as they say.

Despite all those magnificent stints we have been pulling to ease poverty, it still continues to be the greatest global threat. Just look at The India Story: The fifth largest economy, the fourth mightiest military force on the face of the planet, bringing millions out of the gulf of poverty each year, dirt cheap internet, brilliant stats on electrification, more access to clean water and food than ever, sky-high office buildings and what not? And yet there is widespread poverty, crime and malice. People continue to die from exhaustingly curable diseases, thousands die from malaria, millions lack access to toilets, theft is rampant, rapes are common and violence is customary. Could all of it be, at least to a certain extent, blamed on poverty? Certainly. Moody and violent dads after daily office shift? Pervasive social inequality? Depressed that you could not qualify the esteemed entrance exam? Do they not carry a financial co-factor with themselves?

Subcase: The Alternate Freud Special — The Dad and The Son

A dad could not secure a promotion in this inflation information era. He was overworked. He was afraid for the family. His son was suffering from asthma. The doctor's office charges ₹1500 per visit, tests cost ₹3500 per month and medicines come at ₹1000 per week. Schools were meant to provide quality education for which they charge a premium and your son has to attend tuition classes regardless. The monthly budget has almost exhausted and the dad hasn't even had the family dinner you planned on the 17th of this month. He hasn't bought himself the Netflix subscription to stream his favourite show. He could not buy his favourite shirt and now his colleagues look down upon him. With all this to bear and still come off short in life must be tormenting.

He takes solace in a cheap bottle of whiskey to numb that pain, at least at night so that he can turn off his brain to stop thinking how to make ends meet. He makes it a routine, to struggle and get strap-beaten all day, then to drink it off each night. And now he is an addict, he drinks all day. All of his pent up frustration and anger now have a non-judgemental output: His words are fangs and his hands are registered firearms. He beats his wife and son every week now. He blames it on them — the misery. "What son have I given birth to? Weak! Constantly sick. And my wife? Just look at the neighbour's wife, she earns! She earns double of her husband's."

He is particularly distraught one day, all that he could save out of the tough life is now gone and the whiskey costs come out of his current earnings now. It is a downhill battle from here. Losing his wife and son and losing his health. There is a stigma about going to the therapists' office, "What would they say? Am I losing my mind?" It is of no big deal if you lose a kidney, a leg or insulin, but god forgive if you lose your mind. Losing it is a huge deal when you have it under control — it does stupid stuff regardless. Losing it? "Alright I have lost it, but the least expensive counsellor charges ₹4500. It is almost 10% my monthly salary and I have heard you have to see her at least twice a month. God help me." But does God help him? No. He was made this way, or at least was vulnerable. Life, and God did not help him either.

With literally any bodily ailment unattached to the brain, there is a consolation. You spit blood on somebody's pristine white dress and tell them you have lung cancer — while they will still be mad to a certain extent but they'd pity you and restrain themselves from further frowning. But save you if you laugh uncannily over a woman wearing a rather unorthodox dress. She takes objection and you tell her you have a mental condition and you get beaten nonetheless.

A century of advances in psychology mean nothing on the grand scale so far. And maybe they never will; what is a century if a million years programmed us this way — to be easily hooked to booze, to be violent, to be suspicious, to be constantly worried. Has anybody ultimately ever won against mother nature?

It is a purely materialistic machine that ultimately runs on the laws of physics, which might very well be deterministic for all we know (and we know some). There is an immensely heated debate running the scientific and philosophical circles right now since quantum mechanics suggests there exists entanglement which further suggests determinism. Studies have suggested that the brain can make decisions up to 10 seconds before you actually realise them happen. The Libet experiment (1983) and its successors. The implications for free will are devastating — or liberating, depending on your temperament.

Are you really in control?

Was the alcoholic, raging dad really in control? Does it matter? The wife and the son want to hear none of it, they have been tormented enough and do not care if he is not to blame, the laws of nature make them spite him, for the same laws taught them to live and avoid any certain threats that might degrade their quality of life.

No matter how heinous the act committed, it is never justifiable to categorise it or the individual involved as purely evil, whether we possess complete knowledge about the workings of the brain or not. Even if I confine someone to an 11D space, their freedom is not truly boundless. Similarly, if we have complete understanding of everything happening within the brain and the reasons behind it, can any of us truly claim to be free? And what if there is even a single aspect that we remain ignorant about? Would it be fair to label an act as evil? Certainly, it may indeed be an abhorrent act, but it would never be fair to perceive the doer as fully in control, since they are unaware of what they are doing and why.

All fauna is to a large extent limited by the laws of nature, an ant or a human. No matter how developed and progressed we become, there will always be another IU drop in serotonin that will lead to a disaster, and there is nothing you can do about it. Sure, you could always fit a Neuralink to control and monitor, but nothing bad could ever result from it, right. Right?

Evil exists and it always will, there is no and will never be a final solution, no matter what any religion or cult lectures you about how you could attain a utopian, uniform society by adhering to its laws. But the gist remains the same, somebody or something had to control people, and so they did. By lashing, stoning, burning or handing asylum.

Religions have often sought to establish systems of punishment and morality based on their beliefs and interpretations of divine authority. However, these punishments often fail to align with our understanding of psychology and the complex factors that shape human behaviour. The notion of inflicting physical pain or even death as a means of control or retribution is rooted in outdated and simplistic views of human nature. Modern psychology today explains that our behaviour is influenced by a multiplex of factors which include genetics, environment, socio-economics and much more.

Capital punishment though, forces us to ponder over a pressing matter as we have discussed already. The feasibility: how long can you just let go of heinous perpetrators? If the punishment is not hard enough, it might not put the fear of justice in others looking or on the verge of committing them. What about avenging those who have suffered at the hands of the perpetrators? Would that not create further unrest in and by those wronged?

In advanced and rather stable societies, the practice has already been abolished, but for those where things are still turbulent, it remains an option and might continue to be. The world will remain a witness to what ought to be done versus what happens. Both have their moments to shine: moral objectivity doesn't exist, as long as it suits us, we will continue to do as we please.

But it should not stop us from being better. If it really means anything.

O wearisome condition of humanity! Born under one law, to another bound; Vainly begot and yet forbidden vanity; Created sick, commanded to be sound. What meaneth nature by these diverse laws? Passion and reason, self-division cause. Is it the mark or majesty of power To make offenses that it may forgive? Nature herself doth her own self deflower To hate those errors she herself doth give. For how should man think that he may not do, If nature did not fail and punish, too? Tyrant to others, to herself unjust, Only commands things difficult and hard, Forbids us all things which it knows is lust, Makes easy pains, unpossible reward. If nature did not take delight in blood, She would have made more easy ways to good. We that are bound by vows and by promotion, With pomp of holy sacrifice and rites, To teach belief in good and still devotion, To preach of heaven's wonders and delights; Yet when each of us in his own heart looks He finds the God there, far unlike his books. Fulke Greville