Economics assumes that man is a rational being.
The rationality one assumes is based on theory of the intelligent promotion of one's interest.
I mean, we as rational human being would choose choices that serve us more than that which could hurt or impair us.
So, we as humans are of the tendency to self serve our self interest.
The note to consider is that in the matter of self-serve for reasons of self-interest; one can adversely affect ones relations with others.
I mean, why would anyone want to associate with one who plainly only sees his or her own interest and no other.
In such a case our own interest cannot serve our self-interest.
Which could mean that we are not as rational as we make ourselves out to be.
Perhaps true, we are irrational beings.
Or perhaps we define rationality erroneously.
Monday, November 30, 2009
rules of engagement
Individuals and their actions are just in so far as they conform to the demands of just social behaviour.
If society per se would not condemn such an action, the individual would be free to act out in the manner he/she deems fit till such time that society condemns that action. By society we mean, institutions set up by society. It is not society per se that corrects but we would have the law and specified people enforcing these laws and specified people challenging erroneous convictions.
So in so far as these institutions are capable to correct any such misdemeanour or apprehend such demeanour, the individual would refrain from doing so.
However as far as the societal institution is incapacitated or plain neglectful to correct the mis-demeanour, the individual would plainly flout the acceptable norms of social behaviour or interactions.
How such institutions are specified and integrated into a social system deeply affects people's characters, desires and plans and future prospects as well as the kind of persons they aspire to be. Because of the profound effect of these institutions on the kinds of persons we are; the basic structure of
institutions in society can be a moot driver of peoples actions.
Makes one wonder how Indians who have migrated are very different from the Indians who continue to dwell in the homeland.
It is not that the Indian overseas are given a course of societal behavior as soon as the cross into a foreign country, but the Indian overseas immediately recongnises that his behavior if in err can immediately call for correction given the institutions in the foreign nation.
Perhaps this is why, people overseas don't take a leak in public, honk the living daylights in traffic, break a queue but wait their turn, litter public places, .....
I have till about a few minutes ago, believed that where you are from has a lot to do with what you become, A recent reading shed some light on that subject,
for I had presumed that it is ones upbringing or societal background that can determine ones attitude or personality.
However it seems that the actual mould is not where we are from (in terms of born and brought up) but actually the mould of societal institutions that
inculcates or imbibes one with a personality or attitude to function in society.
the cause of 'just' behaviour is functional 'just' institutions.
If society per se would not condemn such an action, the individual would be free to act out in the manner he/she deems fit till such time that society condemns that action. By society we mean, institutions set up by society. It is not society per se that corrects but we would have the law and specified people enforcing these laws and specified people challenging erroneous convictions.
So in so far as these institutions are capable to correct any such misdemeanour or apprehend such demeanour, the individual would refrain from doing so.
However as far as the societal institution is incapacitated or plain neglectful to correct the mis-demeanour, the individual would plainly flout the acceptable norms of social behaviour or interactions.
How such institutions are specified and integrated into a social system deeply affects people's characters, desires and plans and future prospects as well as the kind of persons they aspire to be. Because of the profound effect of these institutions on the kinds of persons we are; the basic structure of
institutions in society can be a moot driver of peoples actions.
Makes one wonder how Indians who have migrated are very different from the Indians who continue to dwell in the homeland.
It is not that the Indian overseas are given a course of societal behavior as soon as the cross into a foreign country, but the Indian overseas immediately recongnises that his behavior if in err can immediately call for correction given the institutions in the foreign nation.
Perhaps this is why, people overseas don't take a leak in public, honk the living daylights in traffic, break a queue but wait their turn, litter public places, .....
I have till about a few minutes ago, believed that where you are from has a lot to do with what you become, A recent reading shed some light on that subject,
for I had presumed that it is ones upbringing or societal background that can determine ones attitude or personality.
However it seems that the actual mould is not where we are from (in terms of born and brought up) but actually the mould of societal institutions that
inculcates or imbibes one with a personality or attitude to function in society.
the cause of 'just' behaviour is functional 'just' institutions.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
justifications
Lord Mansfield, an English Judge of the 18the century is said to have advised a young governor in the following manner:
Consider what you think justice requires and decide accordingly. But never give reasons for your judgment/decision, for most certainly your judgment will be right but your reasons provided will be wrong.
What he was trying to convey was that one's judgment need not be reported with a reason, the reasons should be kept private or for that matter discrete.
People often tend to qualify their judgment with a reason perhaps we humans require to justify our actions. Well we as humans want to do right or be just.
Which is why post any war we humans justify all that massacre with humanitarian aid.
Any decision given our limitations of experience and knowledge would be one that is comparatively right and not one that is perfect or ideal. And this comparative perfection can be rendered imperfect.
Lord Mansfield here is advising his young patron against providing the reason of justification even if our judgment is right.
Err a justification & that judgment will tumult.
Consider what you think justice requires and decide accordingly. But never give reasons for your judgment/decision, for most certainly your judgment will be right but your reasons provided will be wrong.
What he was trying to convey was that one's judgment need not be reported with a reason, the reasons should be kept private or for that matter discrete.
People often tend to qualify their judgment with a reason perhaps we humans require to justify our actions. Well we as humans want to do right or be just.
Which is why post any war we humans justify all that massacre with humanitarian aid.
Any decision given our limitations of experience and knowledge would be one that is comparatively right and not one that is perfect or ideal. And this comparative perfection can be rendered imperfect.
Lord Mansfield here is advising his young patron against providing the reason of justification even if our judgment is right.
Err a justification & that judgment will tumult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
