Let me start off with a story. I have totally made up this story but it is, as you will realize, inspired by some real life events. I wont be surprised if a lot of you can relate the story in part or full to some event you know of. May be at least some of you also share the same moral dilemma as me.
"N" is the new guy at the local high school. He is a very smart young man who comes with excellent grades and recommendations from his old school. But for all the great academic record that he had, he was popular only with his teachers and never with the other kids. N is determined to change that at the new place. He will do whatever it takes to be popular with both the teachers and students. So he takes on "B", who is the local boxing champion and the reigning school popular guy. N starts to verbally bully B; taunts him about his average grades; makes snide remarks on how he looks older than other kids; calls him a "muscular sissy" when N warns about taking the matter to school Principal etc, etc, etc. Short of getting physical, N does everything possible to hurt B's ego. When things get so far that B can take it no more, he resorts to what he's good at and beats the hell out of N. Now that there is some blood on the floor, everyone around takes note. B is roundly criticised by everyone around for getting physical and using violence to settle a dispute. "Why can't you respond to verbal taunts in kind? Words should be countered with words, and not fists" is the most common counsel that B got. B is suspended from attending classes and representing the school at sporting events. And N gets everyone's sympathy for being the weakling who was beaten up by a physically stronger bully and becomes the new popular guy.
My moral dilemma is not about what N or B did. N did whatever he thought was needed to achieve his objective. And B, being a person of limited smarts, resorted to the best possible method he knew to protect his fragile ego. But I am not so sure about the conduct of all the others. While B was criticised for losing his composure, N was not only let off despite his provocation of the violent act but he also got everyone's support. No one seems to have paid attention to the fact that N is as strong as B, if not more. Only that it was in a different faculty than B. Why is it that the society seems to think that physical power is somehow stronger than mental power? Why is physical violence more condemnable than mental violence? Isn't N as much responsible for the violent act as B? If so, shouldn't N too be condemned and punished? Or should N be let off because, after all he was only exercising his right to free speech when all that he did was to state facts about B, however offensive those might be? If freedom of expression includes a right to be offensive, why is intellectual offence any less worse than physical offence?
My moral dilemma is not about what N or B did. N did whatever he thought was needed to achieve his objective. And B, being a person of limited smarts, resorted to the best possible method he knew to protect his fragile ego. But I am not so sure about the conduct of all the others. While B was criticised for losing his composure, N was not only let off despite his provocation of the violent act but he also got everyone's support. No one seems to have paid attention to the fact that N is as strong as B, if not more. Only that it was in a different faculty than B. Why is it that the society seems to think that physical power is somehow stronger than mental power? Why is physical violence more condemnable than mental violence? Isn't N as much responsible for the violent act as B? If so, shouldn't N too be condemned and punished? Or should N be let off because, after all he was only exercising his right to free speech when all that he did was to state facts about B, however offensive those might be? If freedom of expression includes a right to be offensive, why is intellectual offence any less worse than physical offence?
2 comments:
I agree N is equally to blame in fact more so, unfortunately softly conducted crimes/offences are often ignored.
Classic example, in the light of World Cup Soccer fever, in 2006 finals Italian player Materazzi verbally instigated Zidane during the finals which infuriated Zidane who head butted Materazzi & Zidane got red card and was disqualified.
It might be because how much words hurt depends on how the receiver takes it. But physical hurt is not so dependent on the receiver.
Post a Comment