Truth's two faces

The definition of Truth is very ambiguous. Truth i believe is pretty subjective. One can make oneself believe anything. It doesnt necessarily have to be 'true'. There is the physics part of it of course- what I 'see' is what i believe- but how does anybody else know what i see? What if my mind plays tricks on me? If I think something is what i think it is- I believe it to be true. But what if it's not what i think it is? What if my perception is wrong? Am I then telling a lie? But I believe in my perception. See how tricky it is?

Well, what i'm trying to say inarticulately is that there cant be a universal truth. Truth is subjective, whether you like it or not. What we accept as universal truth is the majority's viewpoint, arrived at by citing proof which again are accepted statements of the majority. A lot of what we accept as truth is actually hypothesis. Most of science i'm guessing is based on hypothesis. For example, i believe what i read in the textbooks. But I'm taking somebody's word for granted. I havent verified anything but i take a lot of things for granted from 'authentic' sources. But what if they are mistaken?
Sach ka samna - the tv program based on the american 'moments of truth' explores grey areas in human consciousness. It uncovers 'lies' by revealing 'truths' from the subconscious. Almost everybody is caught lying. I think it's scary. We can make ourselves believe in anything we want on the outside. While inside, the ugly truth lies hidden, biding its time.

I abstained

It's voting day and for the first time in decades i dont feel like voting. I just cant shake off this apathy. My mother is really upset. She thinks my single vote can change the result. (in a country of one billion? that makes me feel so important) She's been trying all these tactics since morning- dont be stupid/ how can you be so immature/i didnt expect this from you/ blah blah but nothing's worked. They've all gone off to do their 5 yearly ritual to elect another pillar of our democracy- another sorry chap who will do what others like him have been doing for years and not even be embarrassed. The thing is nobody campaigns in our neighbourhood. You see- we are not a sizeable vote bank- the English speaking, jeans clad type who dont raise a hue and cry when the water supply is stopped or there is loadshedding. We dont fight. So, i said to myself- if nobody wants my vote- then what's the point of giving it, right? Well, like my friend said- just put your stamp on one of the colourful symbols down the electoral roll- u know- the flower, the snake, the ladder...there's even a cricket bat!
(i didnt know this but apparently there is an option to put a negative vote. No worries- will do that next time!)

The ethics of employing a robot

Apparently, in the not so distant future, robots specially trained for domestic work will be mass produced and made available to the general public. I think it is just the thing that will appeal to a certain section of our society, those who work domestic helps like dogs and even then are loathe paying them their measly wages. You know the kind- your mean neighbour, the chai shop owner, the thekedar of masons and carpenters and their ilk. Well, there is good news for such folks. Now all they have to do is invest one time in a good robot. Just look at the perks--24-hr work capacity, minimum cost of recharging, cheap spare parts and a lifetime warranty! Not that squeezing the last ounce of energy out of a child twinges the conscience of these people, but at least exploiting a robot will not be unethical. Or will it? Will it be different?

Will robots have rights? If robots are just machines then obviously not. I suppose one could abuse them as much as one wants. People treat their machines very meanly and get away with it. I mean, there is no rule against Indica and SUV owners who drive their cars to their rattling skeletons and then dump them in the kabari market after making an indecent pile, is it? So what is the difference between a car and a robot? Or, is it because robots will be doing ‘human-like’ work and chores that they will be treated as superior machines and given rights? Barring the fictional chances of robots turning ‘thinking’ and getting a mind of their own I-Robot style, I think we can safely believe that beating, abusing, overworking and exploiting a robot will be legal and justified. But it might not be ethical. Does that worry you?

But hey, you don’t go to jail for kicking your chair. So why should kicking a robot be any different? In fact, kicking a robot might be a good thing for inherently abusive people. They can vent their bad temper on robots and be their nice and pleasant self to other ‘humans’. But then again there is a flip side. Folks might get too used to abusing a robot and start taking liberties with humans when in a temper. I’m sorry judge, I thought I was kicking my robot not my subordinate in office! Will the robots then have to bear the blame for turning humans into beasts? Will they negate all the good effects of civilized society and take us back to barbarism? It’s food for thought but definitely not a palatable one I think. Maybe this is a question Alexander McCall smith and his Sunday philosophy club members can answer.