In the first part of this article I discussed about how any system of governance will always have a mixture of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ use of the system. I have used the word good use and bad use in a figurative way. Good use is when the system is used for the larger good of the humanity and bad use naturally its opposite.
The relative proportion of good and bad in the society is determined primarily by the value system of the majority. The natural tendency of this mix is to gradually degenerate with the proportion of bad getting more and more; the bad drives out the good.
This is similar to the income distribution and its shift in a society. In a society however evenly distributed the wealth is to begin with, eventually the mix becomes skewed with smaller percentage of the society controlling larger part of wealth.
The question is not whether it will degenerate. But how long it will take! Some social shocks and scams may cause periodic correction of this degeneration and eventually the society/ civilization degenerates to its cyclical low. May be the cycle will start all over again.
One of the key contributors of this degeneration is the inaction by the good. As the proverb says; “the best thing that the bad can expect is the good to do nothing”
The greatest tragedy is that the people who want to use the system for their private agenda (let is refer to them loosely as the bad people) have some of the good traits that help them prosper and the people who want to use the system for the larger benefits of the society (let us refer to them as the good people) have some of the worst traits that weaken them. Let us take a deeper look at these qualities.
Co-operation
The bad people are generally too happy to co-operate with anybody so long as that co-operation brings them power or wealth or both.
The good people generally carry a chip of honesty on their shoulder that they seldom co-operate even with people with similar value system. They believe that their goodness is one step higher and they are ready dump and run if the other guy doesn’t play along exactly as he feels is right. In fact they almost make such renunciation a virtue.
Courage
The bad normally has the courage and with impunity cooks the account books /investigation/ assessment or any administrative process for their gain.
The good is often scared to take bold decision and hides behind rules and technicality. The obstructive bureaucracy is often a result of such cowardliness and not just self serving actions of the bad.
Power of Interpretation
The bad will interpret laws and technicality so long it meets its end or favors an ally.
The good often tries to interpret with limited appreciation of what it stands for; by the time they finish splitting the hair it fails to be achieve any good.
Sacrifice
The bad is capable of sacrifice for what it stands for. Sacrifice its principals, society, environment and much more.
Good will hold onto technical correctness, its pride and prejudice even at the cost of its ultimate benefit to the society
Loyalty
The bad often demands and commits substantial loyalty to its partners so long as such loyalty is rewarding. They are willing invest in this loyalty for quite some time.
The good often has little commitment to his partners if it feels that their goodness is not of the same type. They are willing to abandon and run and not pull together.
Risk taking
The bad is willing to take its risk, because they see potential reward in taking risk.
The good is often too risk averse. The potential reward for sticking the neck out could be some brickbats. With no upside benefit for self and downside uncertain and costly, the good normally avoid getting involved.
Now we ask the question “How good is good”. There is a saving in our tongue which translates to “the good often bears the fruits of the bad”
I do agree there are many ‘good’ who are as good as the ‘bad’ and it is through them that we have gained anything.
What we need to do to avoid/delay of decay of our society is to develop a willingness to learn the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’, stick together and support each other for what we stand and not be a utopian island of fruitless good.
Willingness to co-operate, to take risks, to take a position, to believe in the intention of the fellow good, not to be cowed down by oppositions and mild differences in styles and not to run away to our comfort zones is what is needed today.
HI Koshy,
ReplyDeleteWhat you write echoes for me. It is indeed the power of the positive that create the shifts and yet we underestimate the potential and might of what is good. Indeed Good is beautiful, bad cosmetic. The new age, and emerging consciousness I believe is about the positive and the good.
regards,
Vikram
well rambled but you loose the track in the run up to the end in a few conclusions which i fully disagree with but again summarises and Close well ..
ReplyDeletewell done over all
Specially the contrast you draw between the "Bad" and "Good "
You should and will agree with em is that the basic problem Good face is not courage or conviction or loyalty ..but being OUTNUMBERED and OVERWHELMED because unfortunately the good being fewer are SCATTERED and dont have a as strong and consolidated platform as the "bad " who today are amajority and hold Veto power .
Their strength in numbers is what gives them the arrogance , the bully power and the further following ..as usual man a social animal is always willing to follow a path of least Resistance --since time immemorial ..so
the only requirements is for the Good to consolidate and have a combined voice --to start off ..being rogues adn basically courage less bullies ..the "bad " will automatically after initial bravado --fall apart ..but it requires perseverance and critical massof the Good .
I beg to differ with you. The good are NOT outnumbered by the bad. In fact a vast majority is of good people. What they lack is Action. The bad are highly active and are doers, as opposed to the good people who are often mere spectators for wanting to stay away from from getting involved. And this has been happening since times immemorial. When good people come together and finally join hands and take action, we witness 'revolution', or Rang De Basanti action of sorts.
ReplyDeleteIf we really want to improve society, or prevent its degeneration, we have to think of ways and means to activate the good folks. How to energize this lot of vast majority of meek people is the key. I think Koshy's post is thought provoking and deserves to be brainstormed over by the right minded people who are looking to contibute to the society in some way.
I, for one, would sincerely wish to leave a better society behind than what I came to or lived in.
Regards
Baddhu
I think the attempt to paint the world in only two colours 'good' and 'bad' and attempt to convert everyone to 'good' is too simplistic. The opening remark that all 'bad' persons have some good and all 'good' persons have something bad in them is more correct and is the way of the world. And who decides what is good or bad? What's good in the US of A may be bad in the middle east. Even in India, the same moral or social mores may be good in one part and bad in another part of the country.
ReplyDeleteThe way you have put it, 'bad' has an inevitabilty about it. In that case, is it really 'bad'? Would God have created a system where the 'bad' will naturally and inevitably prevail over the 'good'? I think not. It's like water falling down a mountain and finding its way into the ocean. Its inevitable, and all attempts to keep the water up in the mountains will not succeed. Even if attempted, the stored water will putrify.
I do not think that branding people and values as 'good' or 'bad' is the way forward. This creates negativism and barriers. I think a better way of looking at this issue would be to find and band together people who share your general beliefs and thoughts and discuss ways to refine them so they becaome more acceptable to others. Instead of calling the 'other' guy bad, if you identify hhim as following another philosphy and then try to convert him to your thoughts, it may be a more easy to have more converts (to your brand of 'goodness'!).
For human beings, it is very difficult to be 'good', in the sense you seem to see it. As a protagonist, in the movie "Kaagaz Ki Naav' tries to explain to a bewildered and seeking young girl the reason why people hold up M.K.Gandhi as an example, is that Gandhi was good and therefore 'unique'.
Maybe, more of inclusiveness and appreciating the others' point of view would help more.
Suresh.
The idea is not to classify people in two compartments as good and bad. The words have been used in a figurative way. People who, when they indulge in actions that affect people around, mostly tries behave in responsible and decent ways have been termed as good.
ReplyDeleteWhat is attempted here is to highlight the need that if you believe in something you should be willing to take a position, find and work with people who share this position instead of living in a shell of non-involvement.
Koshy