An aggregate of human judgment is not the same as one human making a choice.
I perfectly understand how one human being can be altruistic. For their own selfish reasons or otherwise. Through our actions, we hope to achieve what we think we are capable of. You cannot take the self out of any action. But collective conscience bothers me - because when they beat up somebody because their conscience pricks them, they also collectively hand out punishment. My expectations from organisations, mob etc - is that they not violate another's right. It is apparently good in my community to marry another Tam Brahm. Apparently their conscience demands that the bloodlines be kept pure and incestuous. But in that minute that they stop someone from the community from marrying who they want to - they violate. The standards for corporations, organisations aren't lower - they're actually stricter. Because they shouldn't hide behind ambiguous banners of good and bad. A framework of rights to judge their actions makes a little more sense to me than people (probably with differing values) judging the inherent value of an action. You can appeal to the conscience of individuals - and hope that some of these individuals are powerful or forceful or articulate enough to influence entire organisations. And the organisation may then react in a "conscientious" manner. But it doesn't meant it has a conscience. -- Neha Viswanathan +44(0) 77695 65886 London, UK http://withinandwithout.com | http://globalvoicesonline.org
