The Value of a Human Life

"One death doesn't make too much of a difference in a land of so many deaths".

-in the book 'Riot' by Shashi Tharoor

Modern day media organizations are really good at a form of story telling that relies heavily on the use of imagery and its vividness, going far beyond the good old principles of objective reporting. Observe how the antics of UBL (as Osama Bin Laden is known in CIA circles) and his band of brothers on that fine September morning in Mahhattan, is forever etched in our collective consciousness as "9/11". 9/11 can, in theory, mean different things to different people, but does the mainstream, modern day media want it to be so? And just when the general level of interest in 9/11 was for certain waning, what comes to the media's rescue?

"7/7"!! Or so they would have us believe.

The larger question, I would assume, that needs to be raised here is how societies characterize incidents like the above in the collective minds of the people, keeping in mind that human lives are lost in such incidents. The characterization of these incidents by the media should, in some ways, be just a reflection of the same in the minds of the people who consume the media's offerings. More specifically, the question that often comes to my mind is that whether western or advanced societies value human lives a lot more when compared to poorer and backward societies? The reaction of the west to incidents like these where typically a few hundred or at the worst (like in 9/11) a few thousand lives are lost does betray this fact. Even if we step out of the world of terrorism and mindless killings, it does seem that these societies are always geared to the protection of human life in almost every aspect. Better healthcare, better measures for public safety, strict action against offenders ranging from polluters to tobacco companies and a general notion that being a member of the society at large will ensure in some basic form of protection against threats to life.

Contrast this to the situation in countries like India. I have never bothered to collect the facts, but I am quite sure that the number of people, who die in road accidents or for lack of immediate medical attention after a trauma or for some other such stupid thing, will be far greater in number than any 9/11 or 7/7 will face. This of course does not include wars, riots and other such forms of mindless violence.

So, what really is the worth of a human life? Is it contingent upon the economic or social background of the life in question? Are the lives of people in advanced societies really all that more valuable? Is the value of a human life subject to the principles of economics? The richer you are and the more resources you can afford to spend, the safer your life would be? Or can all this be explained by the differences in the belief systems? Does fatalism have a part to play here? But then are all poor societies generally fatalistic in their beliefs?

Keeping all this in mind, it is quite difficult for me to comprehend the reaction that followed the both 9/11 and 7/7. The general sense of outrage was there, but then does it all warrant some of the crazy reactions that we have see? The quest for revenge and crusades and more bloodshed in general (never mind that the only people whose blood will be shed are those who belong to places far away and are accustomed to death in any case).

In the end, I guess people can expect me to share their grief but they should not expect me to comprehend their outrage, living as I do in a place where death is a hard reality.

The Dictatorship of Relativism

"Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

These words, coming from the Pope of the Catholic Church, shouldn't be really surprising. All religious institutions have always tried to establish a "doctrine of absolutes", a collection of moral principles that societies have to follow and confirm to. Though the methods of enforcement might have changed- from the bloody prosecutions and wars of the Inquisition to the modern, fundamentalist doctrines of all religions today- it cannot be denied that this force still continues to shape human societies everywhere.

But at another level, the very conception of relativism raises a lot of questions. Relativism- the idea that there are no absolutes and solutions to human problems are shaped (and should be) by the social contexts that surround them or even by individual perspectives- does seem, at least at first sight, to be modern, egalitarian and free of dogma. There is indeed something appealing about a conception that acknowledges that problems need to be seen away from the dogmatic and tyrannical eyes of some authoritarian structure, be it a religious institution, governments or any other political entity.

But can societies survive without the forces of absolutism, come as they may in a number of forms? Isn't some degree of "order" imperative for a society to survive and prosper? What is it that can hold a collection of free individuals, each with their own 'egos and desires’ together as a community? Will it be possible for human beings to live at all in a world where there is no unifying sense of purpose for the race as a whole?

On the other hand, can societies develop and progress when they are held together (tyrannical as it may sound) by the forces of absolutism? Hasn't every bit of human progress occurred when an absolute principle(s) was questioned and rejected? Where will the forces of absolutism leave the basic desire for the exercise of one's free will?

Complex questions need simple answers or so the saying goes...oh really!!

Finally........

After an inexplicable amount of procrastination, two previous failed (?) attempts at starting my own blog, here I am ready to tune in to the world of blogging (how unfamiliar does this sound!).
Just keeping my fingers crossed on how regular I can be at this keeping in mind the demands of learning (learning???don't know a better word for this) business startegy, managing a portfolio(tooo eaasy!! as the prof in question would say), writing an equity research report and figuring the intricacies of the paper " The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities", all in a space of 10 weeks.
A word on the address of this blog...
beruf: German for "Calling", a task to carry out in life, with spiritual connotations.
Widely used by the German sociologist, Max Weber in his classic " Die Protestantiche Ethik und der geist des Capitalismus" ('The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism; pardon the spelling, writing straight out of memory and without a wee bit of knowledge of German)

Till next time.....