|
Madam Speaker: Acting Naturally - A Case for TV Coverage.
Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick
Is mankind no longer a creature of self-interest, and why can’t it exist outside of the community? If it must stay inside of the community, it must interact and, in doing so, a moral code is developed. There is already a friction there, between individual desire and societal norms. What is moral could then be considered to contribute to the survival of the community and what is immoral, a destructive of the survival of the community. Man’s self-interest also seems to motivate him to seek self-esteem within his community, which ironically begs for validation of those he associates with within the group. So, he still needs the group or the society to substantiate his selfish individual desire in order to feed his ego, otherwise he begins to feel that he is nothing. From what we wear (appearance), through our acts or deeds, it appears, we constantly seek that validation; unconsciously. This could be where the group or society has its grip on the individual and in return demands moral behavioural commitment from him. In a diluted sense, morality is what we, collectively, want the world to be. But it isn’t. There is one undisputable fact, the group, one’s group that is, is always right with two important rules - a) The group is always right and b) If an individual has any doubt about rule a, he should refer to rule a. That’s conventional wisdom.
“Conventional wisdom” was coined by the economic sage, John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith concluded that people associate truth with convenience. Don’t we? He wrote, ‘Economic and social behaviours are complex, and to comprehend their character is mentally tiring. Therefore we adhere, as if to a raft, to those ideas which represent our understanding.’ My thought is on the ongoing investigation in the House of Rep. Even without the suspicion of self-interest; we should not be tempted to limit our understanding of what is right from what is wrong within the compass of “due process.” Adam Smith (1723-1790), the Scot philosopher and founder of modern economics started as a philosopher. He struggled to be a moralist and in 1759, published The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Historians have long wondered how the friction between the individual desire and the societal norms (the moral plane in which man operates) was addressed by Smith.
Smith argued that the answer lay in our ability to put ourselves in the position of a third person, an impartial observer. He wrote, ‘How selfish so ever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.’ Smith adorned the innate honesty of mankind. He was not alone, the Greek philosopher, Socrates (470-399 BC) did the same several thousand years before. However, Smith’s era was that of changing times – Industrial Revolution – modern capitalism. He later witnessed, spellbound, as the new economic forces (capitalism) vastly changed the way a person thought and behaved in a given situation: modern capitalism was working its effect on human psychology. Smith wondered what made a person to cheat or steal while another did not. How one person’s choice, good or bad, seemingly innocent or not, affected a great number of people down the line? For these he published his second, Wealth of Nations, which in most part seemed to be viewed from his ethical angle. But, were he to be amongst our midst today and publish yet another book, there is a great supposition, it would be about “Surveillance.”
Adam Smith had been a close associate of David Hume (1711-1776), another Scot philosopher and one of the greatest sceptics in the history of philosophy. Hume helped Smith shape his ethical and economic theories. Hume’s heresy, however, prevented him from becoming a professor in any of the higher institutions in
Scotland
: he had questioned the existence of God. Did Hume’s heresy affect the outcome of Smith’s ethical theory? Plato (428-347 BC), Greek philosopher, was Socrates’ student and one of the most influential and creative thinkers. In Plato’s Republic, there was a citation of a student, who put a dent on Socrates’ ethical theory and Smith’s also. The student told a story of a shepherd who found a ring on a corpse inside a cavern he stumbled upon. When the shepherd put on the ring, it made him invincible. Now that nobody was able to monitor his acts, the shepherd went to do evil things. This posed a moral question on ethical theories: could anybody as it were resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed? I suppose the key factor here is not just surveillance itself, but knowing that one’s act is being monitored.
Why can’t man do evil freely when he knows his act is being monitored by those he owe the validation for his ego? There seems to be a correlation here: will man that unwittingly begs for validation of his group or society for his ego, cheat or steal when he knows the group is monitoring his acts? If the answer is no, then it lays proof why surveillance reduces crime. It also supports the call, by Nigerian lawyers, for live TV coverage of the panel investigating the contract of renovation of the official quarters of Madam Speaker and her deputy. People have believed that but for the TV cameras that stared on diabolically during the proceedings of the Third Term debate, there could have been a third term… Back to the nature of man! Supposing the influence of David Hume on Smith’s ethical theory had omitted a major factor. Hume did not believe in the existence of God and could easily have discountenanced the effect of God, which sees, on those that believe that God is always watching (extra watchful eyes). In cause and effect, wouldn’t such omission produce a different outcome that shaded the innate honesty nature of man as proclaimed? Man, it seems, is honest for as long as he knows that nobody of his nearest association is watching, God or men. Police should learn from this when interrogating suspects. They should invite close friends and relations of suspects during interrogations. Suspects tend to lie less in such situation.
A friend, I had long seen, came to town not too long ago and we had a drink together. He believed there should be live cameras trained on that panel in the House, badly: we all know that it was because of live TV that Obasanjo was stopped in his tracks, he said. We can’t take the oath they swore for it any longer: people are no longer convinced that God is watching - otherwise, there would be no evil of stupendous magnitude in the world. The society must keep up its surveillance. He talked about conventional wisdom and why only a fool would doubt its veracity. He, however, doubted the efficacy of experts because experts’ incentives are different from the rest of us. To him, experts are close-minded. Listen to this: An expert is someone that knows more and more about less and less, until he knows more about nothing. I told him he has shot himself in the foot, because that’s not conventional wisdom. He was not bothered about that; could be the effect of Gulder. He, however, asked, ‘What do you think an average Nigerian would do considering the level of dishonesty in
Nigeria
, if he were to be invincible with nobody able to monitor his acts?’ In reply, I asked, ‘What?’ He did not know either. I told him I know everybody cheats, including moi, maybe not financially: it could be as innocuous as asymmetry information on my part; could be in my writing, to gain an advantage or to drive home a point.
The world is a race and people are bound to cheat if nobody is watching. The remedy, he said, is increased physical surveillance because it is now conventional wisdom to assume nothing, but question everything. Academia will not be happy with our evaluation, he insisted. I reminded him that we are only asking questions and you don’t need to have been tutored to ask question. He agreed: but you may need to have been tutored to answer them. Later on, my friend noticed a book by my side – it was Freakonomics – by a rogue economist, Steven Levitt. He had read it and the author had delved deeply on the subject. My friend wondered no more.
Samuel Akinyele Caulcrick, the author of The Devil Must Be Laughing.
E-mail: saceekay@aol.com.
|
Posted by Robot| 13.09.2007 08:18