The Ape that Believed

          

          While life goes on tumbling, rising and reverberating in chaos, there is a strong urge to fit our actions into bins that do not change. I do not know where this urge comes from, but people have defined rules for life that must not change with chaos - their morals! It is a brave thing to do, so not many people do it. People who don't, flow like sheep in flood, un-attending to their thoughts unpopularised by their lack of opinion. But on the other hand are definers of stark boundaries of lucid constructs - Justice, equity and freedom! The society only allows a certain stigma of the latter and so to pass on, some non believers wear these opinions like their own. That is where the problem lies - opinions unbacked by facts and reasons. The problem becomes a mountain when several such people simply paste 'their' opinions to different cases without realising their origin. For example, stealing from a person is bad - everyone nods their head; but is stealing from the thief bad too? Its stealing justified if done for the right cause? Answering such questions is difficult - so people don't really ask them, they go by what the society says, which again is a problem. 

           Everyone in society has an opinion, but few have a rational to it. These rationalists are believers - in abstract ways of living lives. The degree of belief is variable, but such people can be debated with. In fact such people debating keep democracy alive. But again, how correct is it to live by societal constructs which often have nothing to do with how nature functions. I believe that these morals are self-impressed, based of events spread across one's life. Events are subjective, and so are morals.  

           We humans have a good habit of trying to categorize things, but a bad habit of trying to categorize everything. Our beliefs, our laws are tailored to be objective - which is justified given the sheer quantity of us. But this forced objectivity takes away a lot of crisp and leaves behind a boring dry world. Therefore, while believing in something and living with morals is important, to adapt them to an ever-changing world is even more so. So maybe stealing from a thief today is good, but not tomorrow for tens of things that have changed. Maybe one thief can be exempted from punishment, but not the other - yet in a democracy, who is to decide? 

           Ideally this can be solved, if all opinions magically converge into pragmatic outlays. Again a strong believer may argue, that if your morals change with time, then you have no morals. But if they don't, then you are guilty of not allowing yourself to live to the fullest - which I think is the greatest crime of all! I shall cite an example common to my world, which I like to call the source-sink conundrum. 

Nature is at risk today and a lot of it by people who control the world with one important social construct - money! Occasionally there are registered wins against this power, but all our wins are temporary; only money is permanent. We need money to fight battles, we need money to save the world, but where does the money to do all this come from? From donations by generous people who care for the environment - who can only be generous if they are employed by a large MNC which functions for a corporate giant, whose profit blooms from mining, offshore drilling, and automobiles. But that is not enough, conservation is big game: most agencies that vehemently support conservation of nature are funded by people that drive their profits out of nature's destruction. But how much of it is their share, when we personally want fancy laptops in our shiny leather bags, charming gold earrings matching a prized silk top, marbled tiles in bathrooms, ayurvedic ingredients in our medicines and fluffy exotic pets to keep? These are needs fueled by marketed consumerism which fuels back our needs: an endless positive feedback loop! So if everyone is to blame, who is to fight? Can I fight back a business tycoon while jumping naked inside a forest, cut off from all amenities? That is a foolish statement. Just as foolish as saying that my moral does not allow me to advocate the bad. We are all contributing to the bad, explicitly! 

           If my morals don't allow me to tap into this monster money, how am I supposed to fight? But if I take this money, who am I supposed to fight? To save the Rhino, should I take money offered by a high profile European whose hobby is to hunt Rhinos in the wild? Maybe not! Maybe yes? The hunter will use my efforts to blind the world into thinking how much he cares for the wild, as he donates money to save it. A predicament stringent morals wouldn't have allowed to occur or a boon that has allowed me to save five Rhinos while killing one. An action that killed my moral, or an acceptance that saved the world?  

          A deadly extension to the argument: should morals be so selfish that they breakdown the world, but keep your ideologies intact? Isn't this what morals are not supposed to be? But then again, what is so wrong in being selfish? 

         Its high time now that we begin questioning our beliefs - everyday at every place, for we make choices all the time that can have collective repercussions. It is a tedious exercise, which of course is the reason why people don't do it; but no one is perfect - and we must remember that! Its easy to choose between a right and a wrong, but insane to do so between two wrongs. Insane but necessary for a better world! Our evolution as a society speaks for justice, wisdom and love, which with many other things that differentiate us from other apes. We are the apes that believe, and if we all believe that our actions can change the world, then the world must change.