ArrowsInk

Tag: zuko

  • Correction vs. Conviction: The Outer Push, the Inner Pull

    Correction vs. Conviction: The Outer Push, the Inner Pull

    In today’s world, there are many discussions on rehabilitating people when they are radicalised or commit crimes. It led me to a question on what are the steps that one usually has to go through before rehabilitation is possible. I landed at two words, ‘Correction’ and ‘Conviction’.

    Before we get started let’s explore what each of these words mean:

    Corrections: Change that rectifies an error or inaccuracy or the action or process of correcting something.

    Conviction: A formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence or a firmly held belief or opinion.

    From the simplified definitions (thank you Google!) we can perceive the difference between the words. Correction is more of an external manifestation on making amends to ensure better performance or in some cases acceptable behaviour.

    Correction is important in helping us learn, grow and improve across our personal and professional lives. In a way, when one accepts correction, it may lead to increase self-worth and confidence, because it’s a reminder that no one is perfect.

    Conviction on the other hand, is more intrinsic. It provides internal strength to pursue our goals, overcome obstacles and maintain congruence in thought and action. Leading to greater personal growth and even building resilience. Strong convictions help to inspire trust in others, strengthen decision making and foster a sense of purpose and passion. It makes setbacks and obstacles no matter how daunting seem small when one is convicted in their belief or action.

    When I was writing this I realised that one is clearly more powerful than the other. If you are corrected or chastised, you may not always be convicted of your actions or behaviour. But if you are convicted on something, it comes hand in hand with being chastised or corrected which then shapes how you continue to journey through life.

    So where does this difference show up most clearly? I’ve noticed it in two very different groups: children and criminals. Both are often corrected, but the presence—or absence—of conviction makes all the difference.

    Children and Criminals: What is the difference?

    I know the header seems abit jarring but bear with me.

    Many of my close friends and family work with children. I always found it curious when I would see them correcting a child, it usually goes with (a) Shout or yelling to get their attention, (b) being pulled aside, (c) telling the child what they did was wrong and sometimes if you are lucky (d) Why it was wrong. Many times, as adults we stop at telling children ‘what’ but rarely go beyond to ‘why’.

    Maybe its because we assume that a young child would not understand the why, so we don’t bother telling them that till they’re older.

    But when will a child be old enough?

    The question I have lies more with the adults, why do we stop and not explain to children why their behaviour is bad, disruptive, rude (any of the above). While yes, I do think we should pick our battles, for a young child even putting out the ‘why’ makes a difference because it’s planting seeds into their minds and can make changes to their behaviour.

    Many times, as adults we get upset when we receive an apology that does not put into words ‘why’ we are receiving it.

    Case in point, pick which one you prefer:

    ‘I’m sorry for saying that, please forgive me’

    vs

    ‘I’m sorry for calling you that. It was hurtful and childish thing to do. I was being rude and inconsiderate for even using that term, I will do better, please forgive me’.

    The difference in an apology is the understanding of why. It is not simply the word ‘sorry’ that makes the difference.

    If as adults many of us struggle with accepting such apologies or lack of reasoning, why are we leaving children unequipped.

    Now for criminals we have the opposite problem.

    Many times, they are aware of social norms and rules on criminal activities. In a courtroom their crimes are detailed and explained to the jury or the judge and it is always presented with a motive (the why) in the courtroom.

    Playing devil advocate to myself, if the ‘why’ is needed—this is the perfect scenario— why are there repeat offenders occur. Its confusing especially when the consequences have been outlined and experienced.

    I like to think that despite the judge or jury passing a conviction, internally the person isn’t convicted. Ever heard the saying ‘you can bring the horse to water, but you can’t make it drink’. Well, this is the same.

    The beauty of conviction is that it is a double-edged sword. It is more effective than correction only when it is from within. Which means if I choose to justify my behaviour due to other external factors rather than accept that I had to power to choose my decision despite the circumstance, I will never be convicted.

    I can be corrected by people, I can explain and justify my actions, but I won’t be able to see the hurt or pain it caused, and neither will I be willing to accept that I became a perpetrator unless I am convicted.

    How do we continue evolving

    I know it’s an uncomfortable conversation to slowly peel yourself open to the possibility that there are a lot of things in life that makes you a cog in the machine and the same way the cog does not understand why you just go through the motions.

    But maybe the question isn’t which is more powerful, but how we can move from correction to conviction in our own lives. The next time we are corrected—whether as children, adults, or even in the quiet courtroom of our conscience—what if we paused long enough to ask: Do I just understand what I did wrong, or am I convicted enough to live differently?

    The answer may determine whether the lesson ends there.

    More posts

  • How Freedom Meets Responsibility

    How Freedom Meets Responsibility

    As the year comes to an end, I wanted to discuss something I realised has become a symbiotic relationship the more interconnected we have become as a society. It is the relationship between individual freedom and social responsibility.

    Freedom vs. Responsibility

    This raises a big question: when does social responsibility encroach on individual freedom and should it?

    Individual freedom is the right to make choices without undue restraint, as long as others’ freedoms are respected. Social responsibility, on the other hand, is the ethical duty to act for the greater good — whether that’s businesses providing recycling bins, or individuals choosing to recycle.

    In a society where responsibility is shared, collaboration feels natural. But when it’s unevenly applied — like individuals being fined for littering but companies dumping trash into rivers— it can feel more like coercion than collaboration.

    Can we call society “fair” if responsibility is imposed on a few while others remain exempt?

    Let’s look at it from 2 different perspectives Libertarian and Utilitarian

    The Libertarian Perspective: Freedom First

    From a libertarian viewpoint, individual freedom is the ultimate value. Libertarians argue that the right to personal liberty should take precedence over societal demands for collective behavior. After all, freedom means having the ability to make personal choices—whether those choices are popular or not.

    In this view, social responsibility cannot justify infringing on personal freedoms. Even when public opinion pushes for conformity—be it the latest social trend, political correctness, or collective activism—libertarians would argue that individuals should have the right to opt out without facing judgment or consequence.

    The Utilitarian Perspective: The Greater Good

    On the other hand, utilitarianism puts the common good at the center. According to this philosophy, actions should be evaluated based on their consequences for society as a whole. In this view, individual freedoms might need to be curtailed if it’s for the benefit of the larger community.

    For example, in the context of environmental responsibility, the utilitarian argument might support limiting personal freedoms (like car ownership or meat consumption) if these sacrifices can help reduce climate change and promote long-term societal well-being.

    (Which is ironic when you realise that larger corporations curbing their carbon emissions would be more effective than a single person recycling…I still do recycle but you have to admit it is funny)

    The Clash in Modern Society

    Today, this tension is more visible than ever. Social media amplifies the need for individual freedom and also social responsibility, where likes and shares often validate ideas and lifestyles.

    Protests, for instance, while they are a critical part of social change, they can also lead to unintended consequences. When protesters block roads, destroy property, or disrupt people’s livelihoods, the people most affected are often the ones who may already be struggling to make ends meet—like delivery drivers, small business owners, or workers trying to earn a living.

    Recently in Melbourne, rocks were hurled at police officers who were doing their jobs in trying to maintain peace and order for citizens going about their day and also respecting individuals rights to protest and counter protest one another.

    The irony is that the actions of these protestors might turn more people away from their message than towards it. As we know the road to hell is paved with good intention. It ends up creating a situation where the solution to one problem ends up exacerbating the suffering of others who are just trying to survive, which can feel like an unfair trade-off

    Why should my personal liberties be curtailed due to your ‘view’ on what social responsibility should look like?

    This is where the clash occurs: how do we balance the desire to foster a sense of social responsibility while still respecting personal freedoms?

    Finding a Middle Ground

    Ultimately, the goal should be to find a balance—encouraging people to make responsible, ethical choices. But also respecting people who are doing their jobs and trying to make the best out of the hand they’ve been dealt. As humans we are complicated which results in us making processes equally complicated —somehow I doubt we will ever find the perfect solution.

    But to come close to one, people should be empowered to make decisions for the common good, but not at the expense of their right to think, speak, and live freely.

    Food for Thought

    In an age where societal pressures often dictate how we live and what we believe, it’s important to acknowledge the fine line between social responsibility and individual freedom. While we all have a role to play in creating a better society, we must also protect the freedoms that allow us to live authentically, express diverse opinions, challenge norms.

    Because only when freedom and responsibility walk hand in hand, will we thrive.

    More posts

  • The Silent Weapon

    The Silent Weapon

    In today’s world a moment of silence is hard to come by. Be it background noise of the TV or constant notifications from friends or family [on our devices]. Silence has become a foreign concept to us. Even our vocabulary has changed around the concept of silence, terms like Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and hustling are indication that we need to always be on the move or involved in something. If we are not, something is wrong.

    It is important to take note that silence is not merely the absence of noise, it’s also the control and silencing of your own inner voice and thoughts. Imagine tethering a kite to a tree and letting it blow in the wind. When I think of silence I think of that scene, there is still movement, there is still colour there is still life, but it is grounded in something firm and unshakable.

    It is where we reflect on our lives, thoughts, plans and emotions. It is also sometimes what we need to make the right choices.

    As someone who spends a lot of time in silence, for better or worse, I don’t fear it, but I treat it like a mentor that guides me. And it seems that many philosophers in the past have had similar thoughts:

    Friedrich Nietzsche, wrote,

    ‘The noble man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness, and has reverence for all that is severe and hard’.

    Nietzsche implies that true power comes from self-mastery over one’s words and thoughts. It is a space for one to practice their own strength. For Nietzsche, silence represents a break from the dictatorship of language, an opportunity for one to learn when to speak and when to remain silent. To study the world without placing oneself as distraction.

    Similarly, the philosopher Simone Weil wrote

    ‘Our soul makes constant noise, but it has a silent place we never hear’.

    For Weil, in the search for the divine the only place we can find it is in our silence. It is the only time God will not be interrupted in speaking with us because our distractions are put at bay.

    Many times, when we cry silent tears, it holds more emotions and truth then whatever words we can muster up to speak. The purity of silence is that it allows for a free expression that would only ever be limited by words.

    Silence is not Weakness

    One of the most intriguing aspects of silence is how often it is categorised as weakness. If someone does not retort back to defend themselves or to engage in conversations that are untrue, they are seen as being complicit. But they are far from it, they are disengaging from the noise in the world. Sometimes in being well-meaning to find answers, I wonder if we are just giving people the opportunity to justify their actions with inadequate words and resounding noise, that it deafens our moral compass.

    The idea that actions speak louder than words is a phrase we use often but hardly practice.

    Zeno of Citium, shares how silence is a way to prevent yourself from becoming a fool. He writes that

    ‘It is better to trip with the feet than the tongue’.

    His understanding in how many of the world’s fights, wars are aggravated by the tongue, a splash of anger, words and actions that do not think or consider its repercussions.

    Similarly, Jean Paul Sarte recognises that silence has power:

    ‘Every word has consequences. Every silence, too.’

    Silence acts as a signal to others on your stance and position.

    From the perspective of free speech, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and while free speech is a way one can freely express themselves remaining silent is another less taken path that people can also choose to express themselves freely.

    While it may not be as flashy as speaking your mind, it does hold more wisdom.

     In choosing silence, people can reject overwhelming expectations placed on them by society, or their peers. Silence becomes a deliberate refusal to conform to a world that expects constant output and response.

    Silence as a path to Self

    The idea of silence as an introspective practice is not new. Many Eastern philosophies, especially those found in Buddhism and Hinduism, place great emphasis on the power of silence for self-realization. The practice of meditation has been seen to embrace silence and cultivate inner awareness to achieve enlightenment.

    In the words of Rabbi Akavia

    Silence is a fence around wisdom.

    It often suggests that silence is a protective barrier, preserving wisdom by controlling impulsive speech and allowing time for deeper thought and learning.

    In the end silence helps prevent mistakes, protects the purity and authenticity of wisdom, and allows for the observation and understanding of others. It fosters one’s own growth and thoughtful decision-making.

    A Moment of Silence

    There is a reason when someone passes we are asked to remain silent. Silence brings out the introspective quality of life that we are missing today. I hope after reading this, you will learn to embrace a moment of silence, be it in grabbing a drink alone or sitting at the park bench admiring the sky.

    Find the time to be silent.

    As the poet T.S. Eliot wisely noted, “The greatest proof of silence is the ability to hear it.” In silence, we can find the answers, in what is left unsaid.

    More posts