What is the good that a ‘good’ business does?

What is the good that a ‘good’ business does?[1]

Although the title of the book is the good that business does, Robert G. Kennedy in the sixth chapter develops an idea of ‘a good business’.  He is also developing the idea that how business is aiming at the collective or the common good to the people at large. Although the book is aimed at seeking further intercourse between the catholic teaching and business, it also leaves an open space to raise some questions with regard to the theme developed.

It is true that when a business is called good and bad, the same distinction can be applied to other spheres of human endeavor too:  in the field of aesthetics one could speak of a good art and a bad one; in the field of ethics one could speak of a good act and a bad act; in the field of medicine one could speak of a good treatment and a bad treatment or a good medicine or a bad one, at a more larger and wider context one could speak of a good religion and a bad religion as well. I think that it is a good idea [!] to make distinction between good and bad.

I think that there is a difference between asking what is business and a good business. One of the fundamental features of a business is profit-making. Hence one can speak of good that comes out of the profit-making; even within profit making how certain good is contributed to the society.

I am sure that the substantial difference lies in the answer that one gets to these questions.

---

[1] This article is just a reflection on reading the following book. Cf. Robert G. Kennedy, The Good that Business Does (Acton Institute, 2006). This is not a response to the book. The questions raised here are some spontaneous questions that came to me. It is never intended to review the book, nor to refute what is suggested there.

Religiosity and Richness

Why do people go to the Temple or praise God? May be, because they have everything in life. We praise God because we have all the wealth and enjoy all the benefits of the human world and therefore we are concerned about the higher life. This would mean that the rich praise God or that praising God becomes possible when we become rich. In other words, only when our lower needs are fulfilled we will be concerned about our higher needs.  Abraham Maslow had talked about the hierarchy of needs. If religious belief is concerned with the higher or fuller life this means that one’s belief is to be concerned with the higher life. It should mean that only the rich are very particular to praise God. We hear and read that people throw gold and money in some famous temples and Churches. The offering can be seen as the sign that they do not value money so much compared to God and his magnanimity. They are able to tell God – Money or gold is nothing in front of God –.

On the contrary we also know that the poor people are more religious than the rich. Jesus valued the small coin thrown in the offertory box. He also said that there will be always poor with you. Although he had said this in a different context, it seems to me that the passage can be interpreted to mean that these poor will always be there visiting the temple and they will be always faithful. It is obvious that the poor outnumber the rich in marching towards the temples and Churches. When one compares a country like India with the Western countries which are quite well off one can very well understand that they do have less believers and church attendance.[1]

It seems then that the claim that the rich will seek God seems to be false. God is not sought only when one is rich but there is something more to belief and not simply the material welfare. It can be argued that the poor rush to the Churches in order to seek the material welfare, seeking the help of God to attain human welfare. If the poor praise God only to receive material goods, then basic need is not God but my hunger, my clothing and house, in this sense Maslow may seem to be right. I doubt whether this can simply be associated with human needs of hunger. There seems to be more to this. The regular attendance, the affinity to religion can be awakened and one’s explicit identification with a particular religion can also have sociological or political reasons.[2] This affinity to religion can be also seen to be inherent in the human person. That is what some like Paul Tillich called faith as the ultimate concern of the human person.[3] In this sense it seems that the economic relations have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Poor may be more religious (concerned about the higher life that is inclusive of the ordinary life) not because they lack wealth but in spite of lacking wealth. The rich can also be religious in spite of the wealth they have if they are poor in spirit otherwise the immersion in the world can block the awareness of the ultimacy. Therefore the awareness of one’s need of higher life has an easy access in the poor whereas it seems difficult for the rich.

Does it mean that the poor are really and spontaneously concerned about the ultimacy and the rich are not? Was Job religious because he was rich – or because he was poor in spirit? Or he was rich because he was religious? Did he praise God even when he was poor because he was already poor in spirit – or he became poor because he prayed?

---

[1] I restrict myself here to Europe. I do not want to talk about the United States now. It is true that the United States has more believers and regular attendance of the liturgical celebrations. There are reasons for the differences.

[2] In India the celebration of vinayaga sathurthi has become very popular that can be seen to be associated with the political reasons rather than religious reasons. The question here is about believers therefore the question is raised in the religious context and not others.

[3] Paul Tillich calls the faith as the ultimate concern of the person.

FIRST STONE and RESPONSIBILITY

René Girard’s book - Violence and the Sacred - displays some of his important themes such as the mimetic desire, rivalry and scapegoat mechanism. I need to read the book again. His research is very interesting. More interestingly his article entitled “The First Stone”[1] beautifully explains his important themes on the reflection of the passage where Jesus asks the crowd (Jn 8: 3 – 11).

It is a very interesting article in which Girard analyses the importance of the significance of the ‘first stone’. Since the Gospel passage does not talk about the stoning – because stoning’ never occurred – Girard goes on then to compare another passage in which Apollonius of Tyana motivates the people of Ephesus to stone at a stranger. When someone is surrounded by a furious crowd, the first stone is the very important one. All have stones yet all hesitate to be the first to stone at the culprit or the stranger. When the first stone is thrown then stones follow – one after another non-stop. This is what is ‘mimetic’. The first stone has no model whereas all other stones have a model to follow.[2]

Girard explains how Apollonius does not mention about the first stone at all. He only motivates them to stone at the beggar, Whereas Jesus talks specifically about the ‘first stone’. He exposes the importance of the first stone since it is associated with responsibility. Jesus calls for introspection. Those words of Jesus and his action put an end to violence. It calls for seeing the stranger as I am because he has the same flesh and heart like mine and I am in sin like the stranger. The call reminds that the act is associated with responsibility. At the end the life of woman is saved whereas in Ephesus the significance of the first stone was not spoken and the beggar was killed leaving him under the heap of stones. The gospel then calls for justice which drops the stoning altogether.[3]

He then also pays attention to action of Jesus who bends down to write comparing him to the beggar – the victim in the narrative of Apollonius. It is a very interesting interpretation. The interpretation can be best understood only when one reads Girard’s “The First Stone.”   

---

[1] René Girard, “The First Stone,” Renascence: Essays on Values in Literature, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Fall 1999): pp. 5 – 17.

[2] Cf. Ibid., pp. 8 – 9.

[3] Cf.  Ibid., p. 14.

THOMAS' DOUBT

St. Thomas is often seen to be doubting Thomas as though all other apostles never doubted. However Thomas has become the figure of the doubt of the apostles themselves. He is seen to be the personification of the 'doubt and suspicion' of our own.

Why did St. Thomas doubt? One could see St. Thomas to be a representative of the empiricist tradition of philosophy - unless I see and touch I will not believe. This seems to be as simple as that. But there is something more to it. When does one believe what someone says? Think of a situation in which you have witnessed something spectacular in your life. You convey this wonderful news to your colleagues that you had witnessed something great without any felicity, gladness as though you are a news reader. Do you expect the other to believe that you had witnessed something spectacular?

This is what happened with Thomas. He sees his own friends in the same way as he left them after the death of Jesus. Thomas was like all others in a closed room. In his absence Jesus appears and all the other apostles were present and Thomas was missing. When Thomas returned to join the company of his own colleagues, he did not see anything different in the room. The room was still closed. There was no enthusiasm. The fear that surrounded them still seems to be there. And they tell him that they had seen the master. Would anyone believe that they had seen the master?

Think of another situation where the room is wide open. The other apostles are very happy. They have become courageous. They want to go out and preach the truth about the Master. They want to go to the streets. Thomas enters and wonders what had happened in his absence. They tell him that they had seen the Master. Would anyone doubt that they had seen the master? Do you think that Thomas would doubt it?

This is the situation that happens with the apparition of Jesus again – when he asks Thomas to touch him. Not only the doubt of Thomas disappears but also that of all other apostles. They open the doors – go to the streets. Thomas can be seen to be the one who transformed the life of the apostles by his doubt.

It is not enough that one witness something wonderful and extraordinary, but it should touch you, it should transform you. It is not enough that it transforms one’s life but he shares this wonderful joy with others.
It means  that it is not enough that you see Jesus but you should allow him to touch you, to transform your fear into courage, courage to proclaim the truth.

POPE FRANCIS

The Catholic Church has a new Pope – Pope Francis. I was having fever and I could not go out of my room for three days. These days I was telling myself that I should be there in St. Peter’s Square when the new Pope makes his appearance. The privilege to be there in the basilica is not given to everyone. Many who want to be there cannot be there. I was motivating myself that everything will be allright. The white smoke appeared on 13.3.13 around 7.05pm. 

It was raining and I had cold and fever therefore I was in a dilemma. Would not it be better to watch the whole event clearly in T.V. rather than being in the piazza without getting able to go any way near the pope - I asked myself. I was hesitant to go out but I should say that I was almost drawn towards the Basilica. The motivation came from a priest. We reached the Basilica around 7.35pm. We found a place at the center of the Piazza.

The drizzling slowed down as though helping the people to gather in peace. The piazza and the street were full…around 8.10 the senior cardinal announced the good news that we have the Pope – Cardinal George Bergoglio who will take the name of Francesco. I was amazed – I am sure others too. His name did not make an appearance in the newspapers and television. I was thinking that he is from Italy, the name suggested it. Somewhere from the crowd someone said – Argentina.

The Pope appeared – the crowd shouted – the Pope stood still – unmoved, at least I thought he was. When he started speaking I was moved literally. He said: “My cardinal brothers have found one from the other end of the earth to be the bishop of Rome” – He laughed and we too. He then called everyone to pray for the Pope Emeritus. The most important and moving part was this: he said: before I give my blessing, please pray for me that lord bless me. I was astonished to see him bowing his head – No wonder he chose the name Francis.

I am sure that the Church has a very humble, simple pope who will be a living witness to many. He seems to be the ‘first’ in many ways – I hope it continues.

Prayers for You Always – Viva il Papa.

Religious Harmony !

December 6th is a black day for the Indian Democracy. Whatever be the motive for the demolition, I do not know whether this act can be justified. Those who initiated this brutal act may have their reasons and the other party may still have resentment to counter attack. What happens often is that any event, sometimes even a political blunder or some vested interests of the politicians are often identified with religion and therefore they are seen to be religious conflicts rather than the blunder of some politicians or fundamentalism.   

All of us do know that religions, irrespective of their place of origin, keep Love as their central teaching.

Everyone thinks that his religion is the greatest. His religion is the truest and the purest. I do not think that this is wrong. When one believes he accepts a particular creed because it is meaningful to his life. But communicating one’s religious truth often ends up in violent conflicts. One wants to prove his religion’s love and non-violence by violence. Proving one’s love through violence can never be possible.

Comparative studies have shown that non-violence is the foundational teaching of all religions. Mere writings about the message of love or non-violence cannot reduce the religious conflicts. It can be done only with the believers’ act of trust and love. One has to trust the other and more love the other forgiving the mischievous deeds of the other. Only when we find someone transcending the act of rebellion and revenge, trust can be built.

Unless this love is taken to heart

 and we trust and respect and love one another, 

we will not be able to live as true believers.

Stop Writing!

• Why do people continuously write? How long shall we write? – How many books – how many schools of thought – what have we achieved, which our forefathers have not. Am I a Pessimist?
• Today we speak of dignity – A Gain! Did we stop slavery with our books? Should I believe that there is no slavery today? Should I say that today we are wealthy?  Slavery exists in different forms – being wealthy is an illusion: if God is an illusion!
• Is having money being wealthy or knowing that how money will be helpful [Knowledge is wealth!]. Is it the awareness of Adam Smith or the awareness of the determinism of Spinoza?
• When will we stop writing, like Aquinas did? My question is not, when are we going to stop writing like Aquinas on every subject and on everything, rather it is, when are we going to stop writing As Aquinas stopped writing or refused to write?                                                                                                           

                                                                                 28-04-2012 at 0.26

MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

SUFFERING, JOY, and HOPE

When we are put to test, or unwanted events happen, we drown into the sea  of tears, and sadness. Suffering never comes alone. It comes as a legion - one after another. We will not have time even to count them. We suffer so   much that even the good things seem as bad. We do this, and then a little while later do that unfortunately they turn against us. We keep on doing it, nothing seems to work well, nothing seems to be on our favor.

But 

On a sudden day, it is very bright. That gentle breeze that enters the room in the window seems to bring everything fresh. From that time on everything seems to fall in its place. Everything works so well. Good things, like the bad ones, do come in group - one after another. Even the bad events look good - they seem a blessing in disguise now. How happy one is when everything happens as expected.

What we often forget is the link? 

The efforts that we took to set things right. The hard work that we put in to straighten things up. 

Unless one makes such an effort, will he taste such a honey. Could it be possible that things fall on their places, if there had been no such efforts? Without our efforts nothing happens. But they are forgotten in the sudden transition.

That is why it is good not to get drowned in sadness - not good to sit idly without any efforts - keep on trying, Hoping that things will fall on their places.

I have gone through such difficulties ... I hoped ... and I hope ....

Extreme Individualism

It was shocking to watch a short movie titled ‘innocence of Muslims’.  The title had, as far as I am concerned, nothing to do with the so called ‘a short movie’. It was neither a documentary nor a movie in the technical sense of the term. It was not a documentary because it never stated any facts, it had no coherence, and it was not well presented. What one sees in the movie is the hatred towards a particular religious community while praising or attempting to praise Judaism.

One man in the United States had produced such a devastating movie irresponsibly deceiving even the actress in such a way that it is a movie on some clash between some clans in ancient Egypt. If this is what he had done with making of a movie, one can understand well how the movie itself has lots its credibility. Although a particular country cannot be held responsible for one man’s fault, it is high time that a country such as the United States revalues and redefines its understanding of ‘the free individual’. It is not only for the United States but also for other countries which are attempting to replicate the U.S. Model in their own country.

A lot has to do with the historical events and the development of understanding the Individual. One can see it in differences between the Europe and the U.S. Model. There are lots of differences between the two in many respects. The main one that is often noted of Europe is its secular character understood in terms of the rise of unbelief. The majority of them are not believers in the traditional religion, and more not active believers in any religion for that matter. On the contrary United States has more active believers statistically. The former, in spite of having less believers, respects the believers and their system of beliefs that give value to the individual, whereas the latter in spite of its religious character at large displays hatred towards other religious beliefs. It does not mean that I favor secular contents and want to promote secularization. 

What I see much more important is the difference between the conception of the individual understood in terms of rights. While the element of sociality is still operative in the Europe although very mildly, even the milder connection between the individual and the society is cut off in the U.S. Model. One could say that it has taken the path of extreme individuation where sociality is almost invisible. 

[I who am neither an European nor an American acknowledge that I may be wrong and I need to substantiate it with facts, for now it may be seen hypothetically.] Freedom has to be understood as an "Exercise concept" as Charles Taylor puts forward. 

Being Unmarried ...

I came in contact with a ‘Greek Catholic’ from Romania three years back. Although we have not been meeting often, we did exchange views and opinions on some interesting issues of the Church, when we met. He was married and has a son. He is a jolly good fellow. 

I enjoy chatting with him although I do not understand many things, because he speaks fast and I do not understand much a foreign language when people speak fast. People tell me that I speak very fast and they do not understand. But in many places I see that others speak faster than me and I do not understand. 

This is an irony of life. We become the victim of the same thing by which we victimize others.

He was sharing with us, there was another one this time, so that I can be sure that I understand him, about his difficulties in life. His wife wanted to leave him and the son, only to live with another one. The son wanted to move away from Italy and desired to live in his home land. He had to leave Italy to take care of his son.

I told you that he is a ‘Greek Catholic’. I did not tell you that he is a priest. He has decided to live alone with his son. When we were listening to him, I do not know what he thought, he patted my cheek and said:  ‘I am happy that you are not married’.

Does this mean ... No more Discussion ...

John the Baptist - Martyrdom

John the Baptist is courageous. He stood for the truth. All that he did in his life was to be simple and to speak the truth. He was born of older parents – like the sons of Abraham. The long silence of God is broken with the birth of John the Baptist. His life becomes the inevitable evidence, at least as narrated in the Bible, for the intervention of YHWH. People might have been happy that God comes down to us breaking his silence. He with his prophetic proclamation prepared the people.

He had great ability to gather people around him. This is astonishing because it is easy for a religious to speak in a church. But to make people come to him looking for his words is amazing. He meets them outside the temple. He meets them near the river. In a sense, he is taking God out of the temple to the streets. God is not to be seen only as residing in the temple and in the pool within the walls of the temple but outside of the temple too. He is a great prophet in this sense.

He is a great prophet again because he also indicated that religion is not simply to attend ceremonies in the temple but practicing a good life. The good life becomes the basis of one’s relationship with God. Without ever living well, one’s prayer cannot help. One cannot live anyway one likes and yet claim to be a faithful just by attending the services at the temple.

He is great also because he knew who he was. In spite of the people flocking around him, he knew that he is not the one whom they are looking for. If there are 10 followers behind us, we think that we are the savior of the world. If John the Baptist had willed, I think he should have established another religion in which he might have been respected equivalent to God. But his greatness lies in knowing the truth of who he is and what his mission is.

He is a great prophet because he gave away his life for speaking the truth. He stood for what is right. The most difficult part of a prophet is this. But we do find lots of prophets in our time.

 *********************************************************

Many may have forgotten him but the characteristics do remain in many. 

I think many today still want to be like John the Baptist. 

I said that he was born of older parents. 

It is said that many these days like to give birth to babies after the age of 40 and fifty. 

May be because they want John the Baptists? 

John the Baptist is not forgotten! …

AUGUSTINE - A MAN OF OUR TIME

Augustine is a name that many will remember. He has been leading a life that is humanly. He has enjoyed the human life following the desires that was considered by him as the inner voice. There was a moment in his life in which he listened to the true inner voice, at least as claimed by Augustine.

For him God’s voice can be heard only when one turns to oneself. God cannot be seen outside of us. Our human structure becomes the source of our intimate relationship that we can establish with God. Probably one can understand this inner voice when she first follows her desires and then listens to the true inner voice.

He became a strong opponent of Manichaeism which was his house earlier. A strong supporter becomes an antagonist. Great people always have two views. The later views are juxtaposed to the former views. St. Paul was a strong believer and ardent supporter of Judaism. And on a sudden day, he becomes the supporter of Christianity. I also think of Wittgenstein – the best example of the early and later writings. Now every philosopher is claimed to have such an early and later… A before and After… If we want to be famous, if not philosophers, should we have to have an early and later life that is opposed to each other?

The division is not only between the before and after, but inner and outer, between the secular and the religious – The two cities of Augustine are very famous and continue its influence one way or the other in the contemporary discussions. Can we not live without binaries?

Augustine’s influence has been tremendous that one can learn from his personal life or his philosophical writings. He may have lived in the 4^th and 5^th century, yet he is not far from us. Many of the contemporary thoughts can be traced back to him. He is so close to us, may be also because Plato who lived earlier than Augustine is closer to us.