|
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
If you had to kill at least someone, but were a given a choice - to kill one young man of age twenty, or to kill five eighty-year-old women, which would you choose?
When making such a decision, the first thing that comes to your mind would be the consequence of any decision. You will weigh taking a life versus taking five lives. Obviously, only taking a life would be the lesser of the two evils. Then comes the next step, analysing the potential damage. If you kill that young man of age twenty, you are denying him of at least another 60 years of his life, assuming he lives as old as the five women. However, the five old women might have neared the end of their lives anyway, so perhaps it would be better to kill them instead?
Are you affected by the direct literal consequence, or the potential consequence? As much as this question demands a straightforward answer between the two choices, many of us cannot help but take some time to actually ponder over our decision. For many, the moment the potential consequence sets in, it clouds our minds and removes us from our simple one-factor-to-consider scenario. Taking away this "ceteris-paribus" status makes individuals go into a mini-panic, and this activates their emotional side that will eventually affect their decision.
Now, think again. This question is about killing, thus emotional glands will definitely be activated. This is because us, homo sapiens, have longed been programmed to think of killing as a wrongdoing, a sin, a traumatising experience should one experience or witness it. But why is this so? Why should killing here, in this case, be seen as such? Is it because of religion? Is it the far-too-successful nurturing of the society that makes us feel and think this way? No background information has been attached to the question - it could have been about saving many other lives! In the sense that one party's the murderer(s) and a death sentencing could have saved lives of potential victims.
Next, why did the question deliberately choose the subjects of a young man and five old women? One young man of age twenty gives us the impression he has a bright future ahead of him. Why? The term young injects positivity in our minds, the age further confirms it. The male gender is more perceived to have a bright future, in the sense, an illustrious career, a responsible head of the home, an important figure in society. On the contrary, five old women portray a frail image, and the age further confirms it. Furthermore, the female gender here, coupled by their age, gives us the impression they are needed to be taken care of. This adds an idea of burden they are giving to others around them, and thus not as useful to society as compared to, the former subject.
If the question had their subject's genders and ages edited, would you still have gone through the same thought process to make your decision? Sure, the decision might have been the same. But in this case, the process is far more important. Why do societal norms and stereotypes spring into action even when making such a seemingly inconsequential hypothetical decision? Has society made us or have we made society? This is important, for this is how we are governed, how we think, and how we set our laws. I am not trying to propose some New World theory, but I just wanted to highlight how much our society, our government, our nurturing environment affects the most delicate and crucial part of the homo sapien - the human mind.
Yes, it might have been convenient to fall back on such beliefs. It gives us a sense of reassurance and stability, but could we have been denying ourselves of something better? What if you were told one day everything is, but everything? Or maybe its us that are the problem - we choose to accept too many different interpretations and think too much.
Just like that, I denied myself of what I preached.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood - which one will you choose?
|
|
