It is not necessarily hypocrisy to argue against allowing X (e.g.
private/selective schooling) whilst nevertheless buying X for your kids. E.g. if
air was privatised and sold, I'd fight that tooth and nail, while
buying it for my kids. Nothing hypocritical about that.
There are important goods Chakrabarti cannot have for all kids while private schools are in place (such as a level playing field when it comes to careers in journalism, the civil service, etc.etc.). So Chakrabarti argues against private schools. However, for her not to buy private schooling for her own kids may, under the present system that does allow and encourage private schools, be to significantly disadvantage them. In which case it may be morally permissable for Chakrabarti to buy private schooling for her kids if she can afford it, notwithstanding her moral objection to private schooling.
There are important goods Chakrabarti cannot have for all kids while private schools are in place (such as a level playing field when it comes to careers in journalism, the civil service, etc.etc.). So Chakrabarti argues against private schools. However, for her not to buy private schooling for her own kids may, under the present system that does allow and encourage private schools, be to significantly disadvantage them. In which case it may be morally permissable for Chakrabarti to buy private schooling for her kids if she can afford it, notwithstanding her moral objection to private schooling.
This is not rocket science. I don't understand why so many fail to grasp the point. It's is if they don't want to.
Having said that, some very principled folk won't buy private schooling for their kids even if they do think that will likely disadvantage those children. That may or may not be beyond the call of duty. I am not going to condemn anyone either way.
Independent report here.
Having said that, some very principled folk won't buy private schooling for their kids even if they do think that will likely disadvantage those children. That may or may not be beyond the call of duty. I am not going to condemn anyone either way.
Independent report here.
Comments
This indicates that she is happy to participate in selective education for her child but seeks to prevent other people choosing selective schools for their children.
Where to draw the line?
Alhazen
Alhazen
If push came to shove, would you also buy air for your neighbour's kids?
1-Perhaps it is permissible in a country where bribery is wide spread to resort to such means if not resorting to such means is likely to endanger one's business provided that all one is looking for is his/her basic rights. However, bribery should fought against and should reported to the concerned authority whenever possible and not used in order to further one's business vis a vis other similar businesses because then it would be clearly immoral to do so.
2-A point was raised that many times it is not clear if all one is asking for is his basic rights. Sometimes it is a matter of opinion that it is so. What should one do in such circumstances? Almajlis could not reach a clear answer as to what to do in such circumstances.
3-It was suggested that it is possible that there wasn't a universal moral ground to help one to decide what to do and that it might come down to each person's predilections. Each person has to decide for himself what is of greater value to him. For example, Chakrabati may have found it more important to give her children a better start in their future career than sacrifice her children's education in order not to appear as a hypocrite to the public. Another example, a person who is faced with the situation of resorting to bribery to save his business and who might be very religious may think it would be more important to please God by not bribing; save his soul in preference to saving his business so to speak. Another possibility is that another person might be so afraid of being caught bribing that he would never do it but would seek other means (e.g. going to court of law) to defend his basic rights and his business. The decision of what to do in such situations may ultimately come down to each individual's values, fears, desires, etc.
4-A point was raised that it would be hypocritical for a leader in say a Ministry of Education who is supposed to improve the independent schools to take his/her children to a private school. This situation is really like the situation Chakrabati found herself facing. If this person is doing very little to improve the independent schools then he/she is obviously a hypocrite. But if he/she is doing his/her utmost best, like Chakrabati, then it is arguable that he/she is sincere and not a hypocrite.