My Conscience, That Didn't Drop From The Sky

One day, eventually, I might have to take up the responsibility of being a father.

Now, the question is, what makes a father worthy of being a father? It can't be an age thing, where if you're 23 you're unfit, but once you're 28 you're magically qualified. No, it can't be that.

What makes a father are his qualities. His character, his personality, his temperament. Without those, how can he expect to guide his children? Of all the various qualities, however, the one I was thinking about recently was Conscience.

Now we all know the difficulties with determining a standard of morals. For the sake of brevity, I'll summarize by saying no one man, country nor religion has a monopoly on morals. Society can have its obvious norms (like you can't kill another human), but in this world you soon find a myriad of circumstances which change the rules (can you kill a murderer? Or someone who is about to kill 50 more?).

In fact, you soon find that it's not just a question of what you personally feel is right, you've got to consider the interests of others. My Law School entrance interview question was, "If you had to legislate for the gays in your society, would you let your personal feelings affect your decision, or would you objectively weigh the interests involved?"

(I had to raise my eyebrow at that question, because I had a sinking feeling my interviewer was gay, and I didn't know if it were a subtle inquiry into my orientation.)

I'm trying to push myself, to learn to be resolved and principled, so that by the time I'm older I'll be strong enough of character to be able to provide for others. Therefore, the test I've adopted for myself, is not only whether I can sleep at night after doing something, but also whether my loved ones can sleep at night, knowing what I did.

Now, this is very tricky ground. Should we do the right things for oneself, or for the sake of others? Where the two overlap it is all well and good, but assuming they do not overlap?

Let me offer an example. Some time back, the papers carried a story of refugees in Thailand (I think) rushing to collect food supplies for their familes, with the tragic result that many died in the stampedes. Now, the father who did rush in, and who managed to get food for his family, may be able to sleep at night. But, would his children agree? Could they still respect him knowing that he contributed in a stampede and killed someone for their food?

The converse is true too. Say the father refuses to go, telling his kids he doesn't want to run the risk of hurting others in a stampede. It is a matter of principle, he says. Would his kids respect him then? Would they with their growling stomachs look at him with moist eyes and say that's the kind of backbone they want to develop? (... at the expense of other vital organs, since nutrition is at a premium)

To make this simpler, we have two broad categories, one where everyone's fundamental survival is assured, and the other, where it is not.

Where Survival Is Assured: Here, where the father's actions either way lead to no dire conseqences, there is no excuse for him not taking the right / principled path. It's a fairly simple scenario.

Say his kids ask him to buy a PS3 for them. He can do so (to provide for them, to reward them etc), or he can choose not to (matter of principle, spending money wisely). Either way, his kids should respect him, because the father is doing the right thing, the principled thing.

Where Survival Is Not Assured: But what about when survival is an issue? Say its food that the father can ill-afford to buy. Does he resort to underhanded means to provide for his family? Or does he live by his principles and seek some other way for his family to survive, hard as it may be?

The answer, unfortunately, can't be found by flipping to the back pages. Life isn't an assessment book. I doubt that society can even come to a consensus as to whether the right to survival justifies all actions.

(When I first explained my views to friends, the lawyers in them rightly pointed out that my refugee-father scenario is too simplistic. There are a thousand other factors involved. Are there other ways of getting food? Could he get the handouts without trampling on others? This made my scenario so simplistic, so black-and-white that it's useless to discuss using it.

Well, THANK YOU. That's my point! In life there are a thousand factors for every decision! You can only expect to find out what my general principles are, and trust that I will make considered decisions whenever I need to, right? You can't expect me to choose a certain path for every choice I'm faced with, right?)

That's why I prefer my simple 'sleep at night' test. Do I wake up feeling I did something wrong? Can I face my family members / friends?

My own moral code is the general one that society adopts, and when it comes to the subtler issues, I always make it a point to consider all the factors very hard. Rare would it be for me to be unable to defend my position.

In a draft of this post I had prepared fully fleshed out scenarios like the refugee-father one above, and I answered every scenario as best I could. But that's far too dry to read on a blog. The point is, if you really want to know how I am as a person, come talk to me.

It's that simple.