Coming back to Amartya Sen...
Does Sen argue that the freedom of choice should be given to anybody and everybody? Does he argue that the child should be allowed to play with the knife because it lives in a democratic country?
Sen's theory of the freedom of choice presupposes the ability to make an informed choice, whatever that means. Now, how informed is informed? That I haven't seen Sen get into, so I will get into:
An informed choice is not the choice of a careful selfish individual. An informed choice is the choice of an individual acting for the good of all mankind. An informed choice is the choice of an individual who will not give up the cause of his brethren in favour of unsustainable individual gain.
This being the case, the public cannot be allowed to have what it asks for always - things like driving on the wrong side of the road, killing innocent people, inappropriate sums of money for trivial service rendered, and, among other things, to choose to give up kannaDa and kannaDa music and kannaDa movies and other things kannaDa.
If such stupid choices are made by the public because of the "freedom of choice", it will ultimately lead to its destruction. That destruction has to be prevented, even if it is at the cost of curtailing the freedom of choice.
The knife should be kept away from the child even if it weeps in consequence. The child which is playing with the knife and cries when it's taken away does not have the freedom of choice at all. If it had the choice and it knew that playing with it is harmful, it would exercise that choice and opt to not play. The right way to go ahead is to give the child the freedom of choice. How? The answer is education.
The child is the non-true-kannaDiga and the knife is his taking kannaDa lightly and embracing a different language. Even if the child cries, the knife has to be taken away from him.
So, to summarise:
Flawed understanding: Everybody should be allowed to decide what they want, irrespective of whether they're capable of making a decision or not. If anarchy ensues, nothing can be done about it.
Correct understanding: Everybody should be enabled to make the right decision by giving them education and empowering them, even if the process of education seems harsh on them. In this scenario, anarchy cannot ensue.
Does Sen argue that the freedom of choice should be given to anybody and everybody? Does he argue that the child should be allowed to play with the knife because it lives in a democratic country?
Sen's theory of the freedom of choice presupposes the ability to make an informed choice, whatever that means. Now, how informed is informed? That I haven't seen Sen get into, so I will get into:
An informed choice is not the choice of a careful selfish individual. An informed choice is the choice of an individual acting for the good of all mankind. An informed choice is the choice of an individual who will not give up the cause of his brethren in favour of unsustainable individual gain.
This being the case, the public cannot be allowed to have what it asks for always - things like driving on the wrong side of the road, killing innocent people, inappropriate sums of money for trivial service rendered, and, among other things, to choose to give up kannaDa and kannaDa music and kannaDa movies and other things kannaDa.
If such stupid choices are made by the public because of the "freedom of choice", it will ultimately lead to its destruction. That destruction has to be prevented, even if it is at the cost of curtailing the freedom of choice.
The knife should be kept away from the child even if it weeps in consequence. The child which is playing with the knife and cries when it's taken away does not have the freedom of choice at all. If it had the choice and it knew that playing with it is harmful, it would exercise that choice and opt to not play. The right way to go ahead is to give the child the freedom of choice. How? The answer is education.
The child is the non-true-kannaDiga and the knife is his taking kannaDa lightly and embracing a different language. Even if the child cries, the knife has to be taken away from him.
So, to summarise:
Flawed understanding: Everybody should be allowed to decide what they want, irrespective of whether they're capable of making a decision or not. If anarchy ensues, nothing can be done about it.
Correct understanding: Everybody should be enabled to make the right decision by giving them education and empowering them, even if the process of education seems harsh on them. In this scenario, anarchy cannot ensue.
No comments:
Post a Comment