Thoughts to tickle the sense and mull over

The funny thing that life is.


Why is it that we feel the need to talk to a person the most when we push the relationship into the oblivion and then hope for a better outcome. Why don't we strive to improve the relationship earlier?


Why is it that we feel the use for a thing the most, once its broken. We abused it a fair bit and hence it broke. Why don't we think of the utility earlier?


Why is it that the guy at the top, the one who can afford to give in more and trust a little bit more, expect that the guys at the bottom should be more trust worthy and also work towards 'earning' the trust of their 'bosses'?
In reality, the guy at the bottom has a lot more to lose, by any measure, because the relationship is tilted in almost absolute favor of the company and the superior management... and still the bottom level isn't being trusted enough. And when the bottom level hits back, the bosses wonder "why? how? what? How is it possible that the bottom of the totem pole can launch such an assault against the superiors?" That said, why is it that the guys at the top aren't being a bit more flexible and a bit more trusting. Trust works both ways.


Why is it that when people say NO ,there are no negotiable options at all. Its just a NO without answers or reasons.


Its an unfair world. Its a world where issues aren't analysed, debated and discussed. But decisions are done, nevertheless. But we, as people, are judged. Rightly or wrongly.


Silly, stupid, senseless. This is absolute depravation. Is this also the sign of regression in mankind?


Why did all this happen?

Moral Difficulty

"

We tend to think that some wrongs are so small that doing them makes no difference. If I keep my heater on during a power shortage, perhaps the shortage lasts a hundredth of a second longer than it would otherwise have done. I tell myself that this effect is too small to matter. But imagine a village in which 100 tribesmen are eating lunch. 100 bandits descent on the village, and each bandit takes one tribesman’s lunch and eats it. The bandits leave, each having denied a tribesman an appreciable amount of pleasure. The next week, hungry again, they descend on the village and tie up the tribesmen. At first they have some moral qualms about robbing them again, but then they notice that each tribesman’s lunch consists of 100 beans. “The pleasure derived from one baked bean is below the discrimination threshold,” writes philosopher Jonathan Glover. “Instead of each bandit eating a single plateful as last week, each takes one bean from each plate. They leave after eating all the beans, pleased to have done no harm, as each has done no more than sub-threshold harm to each person.” The outcome of the second raid is the same as that of the first, yet this time no tribesman has been “significantly” wronged by any bandit. Can we still say that some crimes are too small to matter? (Jonathan Glover and M.J. Scott-Taggart, “It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It,”Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 49 (1975), 171-209)" From the peerless Futility Closet