---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'Essay 3.1: The ill-Ethical un-Logical fabric'

---

# Essay 3.1
# The ill-Ethical un-Logical fabric - Part 1

[Part 1](https://hackmd.io/@70HhYl1ZRgeQ9ODSznZZwA/rJjJ-Q68h)
[Part 2](https://hackmd.io/@70HhYl1ZRgeQ9ODSznZZwA/HJ0STNfnn)
 
Note: This piece is a personal take on ethics in policy. Due to my diverse background and personal experiences, I approach this piece as a global citizen, with implications/extensions possible in the Indian context due to the clear growing numbers. After weeks of researching multiple sides to the cases mentioned, I have settled on the side that prioritizes scientific reasoning on natural/fundamental truths to form the cornerstone of their ethical framework.

Goodness me, Takshashila’s Academic Conference was quite an intellectual whirlwind! A big shout out to the entire amazing team for organizing it, especially for choosing such great speakers with unique topics! As much as I would love to write pieces and pieces on each of the sessions, for now, I would like to just add in my two cents on the last session, Ethical Reasoning in Public Policy, by Nitin Pai, co-founder and director of the Takshashila Institution.

Although the session was quite diverse in its discussion, I will just cherry pick one extremely important idea mentioned, that is extremely personal to me, that has got me pulling my hair out, and that has gotten me quite vocal in my frustration of it - logic, or rather, the death of it. Loosely speaking, Nitin had discussed employing reason and logic, along with ethics, aka ethical reasoning, to reach a plausible, idealistic solution to an ethical dilemma. In fact, he had even discussed his “Eightfold Path for Ethical Reasoning in Public Policy”, in conjunction with the idea that “reason” can be a means of convincing. And I whole-heartedly agree. We all do need some sort of moral compass that can steer us through the troubled waters of ethical dilemmas.

However, there is one caveat. We might be discussing, perhaps as intellectually as possible, about logic and ethics for the greater good of the people. But what if, just what if, the people themselves didn't have an appreciation of logic and reason in general? I do not necessarily mean purely in the space of public governance alone, but also just day in day out, old, regular, logic [1]. For example, I have had people tell me that they themselves are their own reference when asked about what their source is [9]. Fun times, eh? I have so many personal examples of the death of logic but won’t get into them. Now, let me set some of the background.

Logic, although should be as objective as possible, can quickly get inherently subjective, especially when it involves personal opinions. When “old, illogical practices” like Sati and Child Marriage are not questioned and banned, the doers continue unimpeded, often stating that “Oh, we believe/feel that we should do this for so and so reason as our ancestors did”. So you start to see the problem here, right? Their logic of practicing a custom is a belief, an idea, that is only based on a feeling/superstition, and not a scientific temperament. And well enough, a lot of laws have been constituted to get rid of old, irrational practices, that when followed based on their unsubstantiated feelings and nothing else, do more social/individual harm than good. Ok, simple enough, so far, so good.

Now, we come to “current, mixed practices”. When I use the word “mixed”, I mean that it’s a mix of irrationality and rationality. Some of the old, harmful customs have been done away with, but some not-so-rational yet harmless customs still exist as they might be deemed to not do social/individual harm, like Made Snana [2, 3] (lower-castes rolling on leftovers of the upper-castes with the rational of purifying themselves of sins).

Here’s another example of subjective logic, but in the context of modern capitalism. Borrowing a term from Adnan Ansari’s answer to a question of mine in his session, Frameworks for Public Advocacy, I should try to define “market failure” to convince companies of an alternative business path. But if I were to do that in social terms (such as increase in depression), to social media giants like Facebook, they are not likely to listen. For them, it’s logical to continue having us scroll mindlessly as it translates to monetary profit, but for me, it's illogical to continue such a platform when it obviously, and scientifically, amounts to a major force for social harm. So logic can get subjective due to one party’s prioritization of one or more truths/facts over others, perhaps due to self-interest or something alike. With the Facebook example, the logic of prioritizing money for self-interest was at least practical/factual based, if not ethically based, as opposed to being belief based. Now that we have seen “current, mixed practices” in the context of subjective logic, let’s further explore the premise of “beliefs as logic” in the context of “new, illogical practices”.

So now, what do you get if someone’s logic was not based on anything concrete at all, purely based on feelings, and yet, presented as strongly ethical? You get the “new, illogical practices”. The issue with this is that since they are presented to be quite ethically based (without any ethical or logical reasoning whatsoever), it becomes an ideological belief, or simply put, a mindset. And when you have this certain type of mindset ingrained in the “critical mass” of any geography, and it’s then further propagated, “new, illogical practices”, becomes “future, illogical mindset”. And hence, we get back to square one of the “old, illogical practices”, but in a much more complex, layered, and perhaps, irrevocable manner.

But what exactly are these new/future illogical practices/mindset that I am talking about? Well, here are just two of the most head-throbbing, real-life examples: i) stating that 2+2=5 because “Maths is inherently racist under the ideology that there is no such thing as an objective reality” [4, 5, 6], and ii) identifying as a cat, an elf, a tree, or literally anything (aka Furries). The latter example, as you might already well know, arises from the base of “identifying” or “feeling” of a particular orientation. Although it initially started out identifying as different genders, sexuality, etc., it quickly blew out of proportions to include all sorts of things now (TransAbled, TransAge, TransRace, etc.).

And it’s exactly all this absurdity that quite perplexes me, to say the least. Since we have relatively socially legitimized the feelings of a group of people identifying as a different gender, who is to stop another group of people feeling and identifying as anything else? Be as bizarre as they might be, it still is their feelings, right? You guessed it, the answer is a simple, straightforward no. No, you can't just feel like a wolf, or a 6 year old, or feel that Maths is racist and so 2+2 should equal 5 (in George Orwell’s 1984, this is exactly what happened). You might also say that these examples might be just isolated to only a select few in a specific geography. Oh, how I wish with all my heart to be true! But unfortunately, this mindset is fast spreading globally, and is coming to even India in ways more than one. For example, drag shows (where many dress provocatively and some dress as the devil, after all, “an empty mind is the devil's workshop”) are being increasingly marketed as children-friendly in the West, with the same now happening in India too [7]. In my view, sexuality is a subject not for the tender ages as it further propagates to a sole purpose of sexuality and objectifies the human body, blurring other real matters in life out of focus.

So in general, what do I exactly mean by “new/future illogical mindset”? I have already given the stark examples previously, and you might have already made an abstraction from it. But formally, it's the mindset of being a slave to your own desires. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not lashing out on liberty of thoughts, actions, and feelings, but rather on the loss of a logical mindset. In fact, there are inherent limitations to liberty, as in, I don't have the liberty to curb your liberty, even if it's self-harming. But that does not mean I don't speak up, because, after all, I do have a strong concern for your well-being. Anyways, I am reminded of a quote by Eliud Kipchoge, who is regarded as the greatest marathon runner of all time, “Only the disciplined ones in life are free. If you are undisciplined, you are a slave to your moods and your passions.” As Brad Stulberg says [8],
-- “Perhaps the best kind of freedom, then, is the one that allows you to fulfill your wishes and desires in a productive and sustainable manner. For just about everyone I know this includes having at least some constraints, or what Kipchoge and Willink call discipline.”
-- “One problem with the current ethos of heroic individualism is that it fails to separate absolute freedom from true freedom, and instead unquestionably celebrates both. It also fails to separate productive constraints from unproductive ones, looking down upon them all.”

For our context, this points to quite an increasing problem - promoting absolute freedom and demoting real freedom. I will give you a related example of this, but trust me, I mean no malice against anyone. We all know that obesity leads to a vast number of health issues. But some who propagate body positivity, shut those who even make the daring suggestion to others on how their obesity might be controlled. They say to be inclusive of all types of bodies, including fat ones, and to accept all their flaws that come with it. While in principle, I am all inclusive of all people and their bodies, it is still quite illogical and unethical to promote unhealthy views of any-body forms. If I had a friend who was obese, out of pure concern for his well-being, I would do my best to help him stay on the path to getting more healthy, rather than just say, “You go man! You do you! More power to you! Let no one else tell you otherwise!” Ironically enough, the activists with these slogans don't realize that it is their own unworked obesity, if not the people, that will tell them otherwise.

Having set some of the background of reasoning and ethics in the contemporary context, we will look through the policy angle and other considerations in [Part 2](https://hackmd.io/@70HhYl1ZRgeQ9ODSznZZwA/HJ0STNfnn).

Note: For accessing the links referenced, the Appendix is attached to the end of [Part 2](https://hackmd.io/@70HhYl1ZRgeQ9ODSznZZwA/HJ0STNfnn).