Being unfair to oneself

In this day and age of many having an opportunity to be heard by a reasonably large audience, many philosophies, prescriptions of attitudes and such float on the world of web. Being fair to oneself is one such idea that floats around on the web. It is seen as the touchstone for all decisions in one's life. Perhaps, amongst those with an undying concern for justice, the inclusion of the word 'fair' gives it a slight edge over the other popular ideal of 'pursuit of happiness'.

Being fair to oneself has given birth to a progeny – of Abrahamic proportions if I might add - of ideas with some leading ones being 'do what you love', 'walk away from exploitative relationships', 'enlightened self interest' etc. Apart from these positive ones, I believe even the cynical statement, 'cannot rise up from one's class interests' also has the same parent.

The idea is assuming a hegemonic status today in the informed circles. It would be interesting to ask the question, what is the alternative or is there an opposing idea. There must be one because ideas can emerge only in a context of multiplicity of ideas. So what is the other and what is the basis of the other. I will make an attempt to put together the other which can also be its exact opposite.

The sailor who refuses to abandon a sinking ship until everyone else is safely on the rescue boat and risks going down with the ship, the wife in an abusive relationship choosing to risk her life in all senses by staying in the relationship either by nurturing an irrational optimism of transformation in the relationship or believing that to be the demand on her on account of the commitment entered into on a happy day years before, the person who suppresses his voice out of concern about the impact his speech will have on different members of the audience and beyond. These are people, who I think, are challenging the 'being fair to oneself' idea.

To be fair to the idea itself and its proponents, the idea probably has many riders. There can be a moral boundary on what are one's legitimate interests, one can argue that one's interest is actually others' happiness and therefore, being fair to oneself would necessarily include others' happiness. While that might indeed be there, the practical usage of the idea has generally been about protecting the person's life, property, dignity, happiness and right to fair treatment.

There is a fairly dramatic counter example to this. The following is the description of the finest hour of Jesus Christ.At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to death. At the time Crucifixion was the "worst" death. Only the worst criminals were condemned to be crucified. Each nail was 6 to 8 inches long. The nails were driven into his wrist. Not into his palms as is commonly portrayed. There's a tendon in the wrist that extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew that when the nails were being hammered into the wrist that tendon would tear and break, forcing Jesus to use his back muscles to support himself so that he could breath. Both of his feet were nailed together. Thus he was forced to support himself on the single nail that impaled his feet to the cross. Jesus could not support himself with his legs because of the pain so he was forced to alternate between arching his back then using his legs just to continue to breath. Jesus endured this reality for over 3 hours.

A few minutes before he died, Jesus stopped bleeding. He was simply pouring water from his wounds. From common images we see wounds to his hands and feet and even the spear wound to his side. But do we realize his wounds were actually made in his body. A hammer driving large nails through the wrist, the feet overlapped. And an even large nail hammered through the arches, then a
Roman guard piercing his side with a spear. But before the nails and the spear Jesus was whipped and beaten. The whipping was so severe that it tore the flesh from his body. The beating so horrific that his face was torn and his beard ripped from his face. The crown of thorns cut deeply into his scalp. Most men
Would not have survived this torture."He had no more blood to bleed out, only water poured from his wounds." The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters
(just less than a gallon) of blood. Jesus poured all 3.5 litres of his blood; He had three nails hammered into his Members; a crown of thorns on his head and, beyond that, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into his  chest. All these without mentioning the humiliation he suffered after carrying his own cross for almost 2 kilometers, while the crowd spat in his face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg of weight).

That is the description of the hours in which he surrendered to God's will and  sacrificed his life, dignity, happiness and right to fair treatment. Since he never had any property worth the name, there wasn't much to sacrifice on that front. Did he find happiness in undergoing crucifixion. Only in the sense of fulfilling his duty. For as C S Lewis states 'In Gethsemane the holiest of all petitioners prayed three times that a certain cup might pass from him. It did not.'

The question that one should is ask is, why the sacrifice? He sacrificed for redeeming humanity from the consequences of eternal death for lives drenched in a sinful nature. He opened a path out of those consequences and invited all to enter. What if we deny the whole need for such a redemption by saying that the 'consequence' is merely a figment of our imagination. In that case, can we have an ideal that would logically demand similar sacrifices out of us? My guess is no. If we remove that condition, we cannot really think of anything more than 'being fair to oneself' and calibrated sacrifices. Not the total sacrifice of the kind written above.

To further accentuate the contrast, one can compare the finest hour of Krishna in the Hindu mythology. The revelation to Arjuna at the end of the Bhagvad Gita where Krishna is revealed as the all powerful, all encompassing and omnipresent followed by his fulfilling the purpose of his incarnation by destroying evil in the form of Kauravas in the war in Kurukshetra. In the case of Krishna, the evil had a person in the form of Kauravas which had to be destroyed. In the case of Christ, evil did not have a personality and there was nothing to be gained by destroying the Jews or Romans. The Jews and Romans went about their lives undisturbed by the crucifixion and the resurrection. There was simply no material impact for the sacrifice. At least not for a few years. It is a different matter that today our newspapers proclaim the 'event' when they use the Gregorian calendar for dates.

There are many who have taken that path towards a complete, total sacrifice. Where they were unfair to themselves. Every missionary who has ventured into the unknown and suffered the consequences, a Mother Teresa who went out into the streets of Kolkata to take care of the leper, the dying, Paul Brand who treated leprosy all his life and made astounding contribution to understanding leprosy, a Gandhi who stood spellbound by a statue of crucified Christ at the Sistine Chapel and eschewed every protection other than that offered by God, a Socrates who willingly drank the hemlock in service of his beloved democracy. Closer home, my grandfather knelt in front of a knife wielding, drunk attacker who had come to take the life of a friend of his and said, 'take my life if you must.' They were not being fair to themselves.

Now that there are examples of individuals who lived a life that was the opposite of 'being fair to oneself', let us see what the left liberal calls these people and their sacrifice. “Professor Thapar’s public intellectual is not a Socratic or Christ-like gadfly with a raging death drive, but is embodied in the figure of the Buddha.” (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-rise-of-the-liberalright-intellectual/article6926683.ece). There is no glory in sacrifice. It is merely a 'raging death drive' for some. I would think that these are also the purveyors of 'being fair to oneself' as an idea. For they have effectively destroyed the foundational premise of 'glory in sacrifice'. There is no eternity, it is only the life on earth. There are no seraphs inviting you to be in their midst and glorify God, it is only a figment of imagination. There is no metaphysics, it is only a dead branch of philosophy. There is nothing before the beginning of time, nothing has no observational consequences (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html). I also suspect that there is the assumption of 'no natural limits' that underpins the 'being fair to oneself' idea. If life had zero sum games, then being fair to oneself might actually entail stepping on someone else's toes. But this assumption is not a necessary one.

It is important that we are extremely guarded when we proclaim the virtues of sacrifices. A simple test would suffice. Gandhi has given us that test. "Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself." If you are asking another person to sacrifice, be warned that you are not glorifying sacrifice but denigrating sacrifice. If you are asking yourself to sacrifice, you are indeed glorifying sacrifice. But then there will be moments where others seek your advice on whether to sacrifice or not. Answer cautiously, with prayer, with faith. And do keep in mind the fate of the holiest of all petitioners. 

This is something I dedicate to a friend who has stood by me through my highs and lows, who has challenged me, who has comforted me and importantly listened to me. While I do dedicate this to her, it is by no means to be seen as suggesting her concurrence with these views. But this is for her.