Sunday, July 18, 2010


We draw a lot of argumentative showcases on death penalty, but the most basic argument lies between morality and the social norms. Is death penalty, in any way justifiable, moral or “good” in a sense? These would entail miles and miles of discussions and perennial arguments. But let us mark our stand on the point of view of the society and the point view of each individual.

In the most basic position, in every individual, life is the most vital foundation of all social as well as moral norms. For without life most of these are indiscernible. Right to life is most asserted in any humanitarian convention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted on December 10, 1948, expounded a lot on the inherent dignity of human life – considering also its sacrosanctity and divine root. Thus, every individual has the inherent right to life.

However, in the same fashion of argument, the society, as a collective model of human life, has also the right to the same element – the right to “life.”

Every form of killing in whatever token, is intrinsically evil. That’s why we say, the “legality doesn’t follow morality” - and that the law that impose death penalty is just a form of legalized killing. Simply saying that no counts of legal exposé can ever subvert the intrinsic entity of a thing or action; right is right and wrong is wrong in its right perspective. As Socrates said, no matter who you are, young or old, rich or poor, servant or king, there are only two things you are to consider in life – either you are doing right or wrong, evil or good.

Some philosophers say that if the good of the individual is important, then how much more the society which is the composition of individuals with considerable range of value than an individual alone.

If an individual by self-defense, killed somebody and is justified? Then cannot a society do as much? Can we let the society rot by a single or minority or few who are getting worse? But as society with a deep rooted respect for the value and dignity of life even in its divine origin, we find the principle of totality here as inappropriate – that is, the whole is greater than the part.

In the Philippine context of death penalty, who are those individuals in the array of death sentences? It seems that there is a sort of statistical bias or white and wealthy immunity.

Haven’t you been baffled by the fact that since the conception of death penalty, no rich and famous have been grilled to death penalty despite many of them deserves the sentence. Is there a renowned (or even corrupt) politician, wealthy individuals, or a man with considerable socio-political quo that is being plunge is such penalty?

None after all!

What are mostly at stake are those who cannot afford to pay even an over-the-counter defense lawyer. Most of them are sacrificial lambs to the fangs of their fellow with wolf-like character.

Corollary to this is the considerable frail of the judicial function. I guess the operation of the court is at the expense also of the rhetorical acumen of the lawyer and of monetary language. The wealthier you are the more chance of being at the 'safe' side of the grilling arena. Now your attorney keeps talking with blithe of money sign in front of his face!

Evil is evil even if you dress it up with so many legal, judicial, moral or spiritual of whatever kind. If a law killed because it is in the law that states so and so, it is no more than an icing on the cake of the matter – the real thing is hidden below it.

Either you’re pro death penalty or not – defend your cause!



One of the perennial, almost ashes in the sands of time story, I've ever heard. Obviously, it started or is attributed to Aesop, an ancient slave by chain but a freeman by brain.

The story of the Tortoise and the Hare is a story I considered firmer than metal, malleable than gold and harder than diamonds can be; for only one reason, it has preserved it's posterity that reverberates to the present generations.

This story has spawned several versions, I guess, even the one below; and it's all about being in the competitive corporate environment. Only that, the story has been stretched a little bit, if you won't mind.

So, go ahead have a fill!

Once upon a time a tortoise and a hare had an argument about who was faster. They decided to settle the argument with a race. They agreed on a route and started off the race. The hare shot ahead and ran briskly for some time. Then seeing that he was far ahead of the tortoise, he thought he would sit under a tree for some time and relax before continuing the race. He sat under the tree and soon fell asleep. The tortoise plodding on overtook him and soon finished the race, emerging as the undisputed champ. The hare woke up and realized that he had lost the race.

The moral of the story is that slow and steady wins the race. This is the version of the story that we have all grown up with. Just recently, however, someone told me a more interesting version of this story. It continues.

The hare was disappointed at losing the race and he did some soul-searching. He realized that he lost the race only because he had been overconfident, careless and lax. If he had not taken things for granted, there is no way the tortoise could have beaten him. So he challenged the tortoise to another race. This time, the hare went all out and ran without stopping from start to finish. He won by several miles.

The moral of the story is that fast and consistent will always beat the slow and steady. If you have two people in your organization, one slow, methodical and reliable, and the other fast and still reliable at what he does, the fast and reliable chap will consistently climb the organizational ladder faster than the slow, methodical chap. It is good to be slow and steady; but it is better to be fast and reliable.

The story does not end here yet. The tortoise did some thinking this time, and realized that there is no way he can beat the hare in a race the way it was currently formatted. He thought for a while, and then challenged the hare to another race, but on a slightly different route. The hare agreed. They started off. In keeping with his self-made commitment to be consistently fast, the hare took off and ran at top speed until he came to a broad river. The finishing line was a couple of kilometers on the other side of the river. The hare sat there wondering what to do. In the meantime the tortoise trundled along, got into the river, swam to the opposite bank, continued walking and finished the race.

The moral of the story is to first identify your core competency and then change the playing field to suit your core competency. In an organization, if you are a good speaker, make sure you create opportunities to give presentations that enable the senior management to notice you. If your strength is analysis, make sure you do some sort of research, make a report and send it upstairs. Working to your strengths will not only get you noticed, but will also create opportunities for growth and advancement.

The story still has not ended. The hare and the tortoise, by this time, had become pretty good friends and they did some thinking together. Both realized that the last race could have been run much better. So they decided to do the last race again, but to run as a team this time. They started off, and this time the hare carried the tortoise till the riverbank. There, the tortoise took over and swam across with the hare on his back. On the opposite bank, the hare again carried the tortoise and they reached the finishing line together. They both felt a greater sense of satisfaction than they had felt earlier.

The moral of the story is that it is good to be individually brilliant and to have strong core competencies; but unless you are able to work in a team and harness each other’s core competencies, you will always perform below par because there will always be situations at which you will do poorly and someone else does well. Teamwork is mainly about situational leadership, letting the person with the relevant core competency for a situation take the leadership.

There are more lessons to be learnt from this story. Note that neither the hare nor the tortoise gave up after failures. The hare decided to work harder and put in more effort after his failure. The tortoise changed his strategy because he was already working as hard as he could. In life, when faced with failure, sometimes it is appropriate to work harder and put in more effort. Sometimes it is appropriate to change strategy and try something different. And sometimes it is appropriate to do both.

The hare and the tortoise also learned another vital lesson. When we stop competing against a rival and instead start competing against the situation, we perform far better.