Reflection Paper 1: Can an absolute system exist in society?

To start with I want to say that this was one the most interesting classes that I have taken in
this program. My goal with these reflections is to discuss topics that I generally would not
talk about on dinner tables because they’re not very appropriate.
I remember once my friends and I were having a discussion about the political ecosystems in
India and America. India follows a federal-democratic ruling that includes a president, prime
minister and parliaments at the state and country levels. My friend from America claimed
that assuming every system has a certain degree of corruption, it is better for one person to
use the black money rather than a whole system surviving on it.
I still ponder on that statement till today. Authoritarian governments can become dictatorial
fairly fast if left unmonitored. But the same is true for a democracy. Being the largest
democracy in the world, India has progressively become authoritarian in multiple ways. It
makes me think of the stark distinctions between these lines of governments and if they can
stand by their tenets in the most purist stance. I don’t believe that is possible. Just like in the
simulation game that we ran in class; some decisions overrode the initial stance of the
leadership that we planned to follow. In that context, some tough decisions have to be
made especially in the light of the pandemic.
It is one of the most debated topics. I am writing this as I am in the US and I see so many old
people without masks. But if this were peak pandemic with rising cases and no vaccinations,
it would make more sense for the authorities to enforce certain rules and regulations
regardless of what the ‘normal’ state in the country would be. So, then the question still
remains on whether an absolute system in its true sense can exist in a society or not?
I would firmly say – no, an absolute system does not exist in the society today. There is an
intermingling of ideas, rules, ethics and moral sources amongst all of them. As it stands-
wars have always been fought for the ‘greater good’ because creatures are hardwired to
think about survival and the thriving of our species so in that almost ‘animalistic’ regard, the
utilitarian perspective makes sense. This is why people get insecure of immigrants and
afraid of them stealing jobs when in reality- immigrants run numerous businesses across the
world that provide employment.
As a politician in a country like America, one’s face has to be painted half blue and half red.
It is a balancing act like listening to Jordan Peterson and following Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
at the same time because both of them have valuable things to say.

1
 Reflection Paper 2: Religion as the source of ethics

“A religion is a tradition and practice based on a conception of what is real and significant
(God, Allah, the Tao, Brahman, etc.), and the belief that sin, vice, disillusionment, and illusion
may be overcome by grace, meditation, practices, and living in harmony, unity, or wise
concord with what is real and significant.”
I have always had a complex relationship with religion. To preface this reflection, I am going
to say that religion is in fact inescapable. We all pray to some kind of God or prophet. Now
whether this prophet is a Christian saint from the 18 th century or Elon Musk of today is a
separate conversation. But if we move beyond the omniscient god then what we are left
with are teachings and literature from centuries ago guiding humans on the way of life.
We owe a lot of how we live today to religious practices and customs therein. For gaining a
sense of identity, it was essential that we engaged in groups and participated in group
activities for reasons like a sense of security, safety, wellbeing and legacy. But as times have
progressed, we have become more globalized and homogenous which has allowed for the
freedom of individuality and expression. In this quest to form our own identities, people
have moved beyond just reading the religious texts. We have accepted our animalistic
natures by looking at the barbaric wars in the past and found a new way to survive.
This brings me to my key question- is religion necessary for an ethical society? I have met
some people who are extremely rational and disciplined in their approach to life. In a way
they have their own personal religion that they follow that borrows from the foundations of
numerous teachings. For example, the idea of duty or karma in Hinduism is reflected even in
the Islamic teachings about doing your duty to the best of your ability, especially if one has
taken money in exchange for it. I am one of those people who have my own true way of
living and it takes from multiple sources but the predominant one being direct life
experiences. Conversely, I also know people who have more of a faith and connection to an
omniscient being than the people in their lives- it gives them a sense of purpose to achieve
something intangible that is bigger than them. So, I do understand why it is still important.
At the same time, I also know that religion is also a cause of multiple disputes and social
unrest.
My perspective is simple: one’s moral compass should be the same today with the religion
intact as with tomorrow without any religious obligation. That is the only way to truly
believe in one’s values and have a strong ethical code for a community. If the morals
diminish in the face of conflict or religious vacuums then the true value of those morals
becomes unclear as they are predominantly a response to fearing a certain outcome in life
or death.

2
As Kant’s view of what a duty would translate into a universal commonality, which would
then be standard across a people. The exam case of Macron’s Macron is the prime example
of this discussion. I have a background in advertising and they would always tell us that-
customer is God and all your obligations lie with the customer; I genuinely belief that unless
it borders malpractice or fraud. As in the case of Masterpiece cakeshop- If my gay customer
needs a cake, I make a cake that they want. It is my duty to provide the service to everyone
regardless of what their sexuality might be. That is the distinction between one’s duty and
personal morals. Duty does not always have to pleasant but it should be universal in its
attempt to do it well.
As someone brought up without much religious influence but being curious about the Holy
Bhagavat Gita I will quote one of my favorite parts where Lord Krishna is explaining to
Arjuna the meaning of duty and he says the following –
“Superior are those who practice karm yog (duties) and continue to work diligently to fulfill
their responsibilities externally, but internally they are unattached to them.”

3
 Reflection Paper 3: Do values define people?

I wish to talk about this topic because of my recent personal experiences. I have always
been an am against owning guns on a personal basis unless it’s a sports arena. Owing to the
fact that I have come to Boston for MIT, I started my journey in Miami, Florida. One thing
about Florida that everyone knows is its gun laws and the possibility that every other person
around you could be carrying a gun.
I still wanted to meet people and have conversations with them in an attempt to get a
diverse perspective. Oddly, all the people I have spoken to who were pro-guns were very
nice to talk to. They were smart and could hold engaging conversations. Some of them were
even anti-vaxxers. And yet, I saw myself enjoying my time with most of them. This made me
thong about where personal morals lie in terms of building relationships. Unless it is
obviously about raising a family together, there isn’t a need to dislike someone without a
reason even though they have different moral stances. In the case of Google, where James
Damore was fired, I didn’t think that was the best approach to deal with something like this.
Beliefs like James had been deep rooted and not easily subject to change. When we just
outcast people like that from the system that they have entered with their merit, it makes
the situation even worse by validating and concretizing their beliefs due to hurt and anger.
Any kind of change in behavior and/or mindset requires slow and steady efforts. Though I
understand where non-tolerance comes from but the best way to deal with this is not to
distance people like that question their thought process. It is highly likely that most of there
extreme beliefs are a result of some kind of an experience or a conversation that they have
had in the past. This also brings to light the question of rehabilitation and whether prisoners
can be introduced back into the society as worthy citizens.
There was a documentary that I recently watched on pedophiles who have come out in
public and tagged as sex offenders. Instead of being incarcerated, they all live in a common
area around each other in the state of Florida. Everyone in the area knows that they are
around and though they do have general struggles like difficulty in finding employment,
they are still free and have an independent life where they can get help in trying to control
their problems before it becomes a criminal offense.
Understandably, there are those few criminals who suffer from psychopathy and extreme
mania who are beyond the point of turning back. But this also highlights the unfair number
of prisoners who are severely punished for smaller crimes while the big dogs roam free in
the streets in the name of power and control. I mean, how many of us wouldn’t steal if
times were extreme and it came to feeding our families? That is why the right measure of
what is right is contextual in nature and varies case -by-case.