Sometimes a simple question can shake the foundations of how we perceive right and wrong. A conversation with a friend recently led me to think about this in a way I had not before. He asked, "If a child ends up in a situation where they have to work, who is right/wrong - the child, the employer or the outsider who comments?" On the surface this might seem like an easy question, but it reveals layers of complexity, not just about child labor but about life itself and the difficult choices people make every day. He also pointed out that, people who tend to comment on such issues are often the ones who have brunches. In other words, the privileged ones, who have the comfort of choice and the security to speak from a distance, without truly understanding the circumstances.
From one angle, each party in this situation can be justified. The child, for example, might not have a choice. Survival comes first. Their family might depend on the wages he/she earn, making education or long term ambition seem like luxuries. In their world working is a necessity. The employer too can be justified saying, they are providing an opportunity. For someone in desperate need, the choice to hire a child might seem like a way to offer a lifeline, something that keeps a family from falling deeper into poverty. The outsider, usually someone with more privilege, looks at the situation with the hope that education could be the way out. They see a future for the child, one that does not require a sacrifice. Each perspective holds some truth, and it is easy to empathize with each.
But then, what if we look at it from a different angle? What if all three are in some way wrong? The child might be criticized for choosing immediate survival over long term growth. By working, they are giving up the potential for a future beyond their current circumstances. On the other hand, the employer’s actions can be criticized too. Even if they feel they are helping, hiring a child is an act of exploitation. It is a violation of their rights and a perpetuation of a system that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. And then there is the outsider, who speaks from a position of privilege, advocating for education as the solution. But their words often come from a space disconnected from the harsh realities faced by those who live in poverty.
What strikes me as most fascinating in this situation is the moral tension that all three perspectives create. Each has its own justification, but each also carries its own flaws. The child is surviving, yet giving up future potential. The employer might be “helping", but perpetuating a broken system. The outsider might have the best intentions, but they do not always understand the reality they are trying to change. The complexity of each choice becomes more apparent the deeper we look.
The question of who is right or wrong here is not as straightforward as it seems. The more you try to define it, the more it slips away, like trying to hold water in your hands. The child, the employer and the outsider each have their own reasons, their own stories, but none of them seem completely right or wrong. It is easy to get lost in these conflicting perspectives, wondering if there is ever a clear answer, or if the answer even matters.
In the end, maybe it is not about deciding who to support or oppose. Maybe the real question is about how we navigate a world that constantly forces us to choose between survival and ambition, between helping and exploiting, between good intentions and lived realities. It leaves you wondering if in trying to define right and wrong, are we missing the point altogether?
No comments:
Post a Comment