Dr Mushtaque B Barq
Looking through the window is like sitting on the fence, watching a society in unending motion, rushing, drifting, and wandering. People are just moving and moving aimlessly as if driven by mysterious urgencies. They veer off at will, prioritising ease. This unchecked pursuit ends in a race for a comfort zone. Comfort is a kind of blasphemy when it discourages ethical engagement; it enforces slavery. People sacrifice depth and profoundness. In the age of digital databases and algorithmic decision-making, comfort is not just a lifestyle but an ideology—one that enforces human atomisation and moral degradation. Comfort, though desirable, suppresses moral awareness when it becomes an unexamined way of life.
Underneath the rush lies a subtle but dangerous belief: that ease is synonymous with success. Since insulation from reality diminishes moral accountability, the pursuit of comfort weakens ethical integrity. As Zygmunt Bauman notes, in a “liquid modern” world, compact commitments and moral obligations dissolve into short-lived interests and individualised pursuits (Bauman, 2000, p. 44). The Polish-born sociologist and philosopher believes that society is driven by consumption, instant gratification, and trends. The expansion of technology and its impact on culture have significantly eroded the traditional moral framework. This vividly shows that divine responsibilities are the easiest victims of both technology and its acceptance in society.
Top dogs must come out of the meticulously managed interiors of their chambers to brave the chaos on the lanes leading to important destinations (Bauman, 2000). Who cares? I am rushing through—let the other be ignored. This is a common aplomb we carry, and it is no less than a mark of ego, a symptom of atomised individualism (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002). ‘Hurry makes curry’—an echo that still resonates in my eardrums, taking clues from that classroom laughter to my rocking chair. Rush has earned a crazy tag as a bulwark against the conventions where “slow and steady wins the race” is just another cliché (Rosa, 2013). And those who once raised their voices against the bandwagon aura are no longer mellifluous (Giroux, 2011). This generation is capricious enough to leave no trace to point out their palsy-walsy blaring (Han, 2015).
As I delved deeper, a long ethical list stood before me, demanding reflection: Moral Compass: Navigating Right from Wrong (MacIntyre, 1981), The Landscape of Ethics: The Thread That Binds Us (Levinas, 1969), Voices of Virtues (Taylor, 2007), Moral Metamorphosis (Nussbaum, 1997), and Spirituality and Morality (Arendt, 1958). But in the noise of modern haste, who has the time? One has to ponder how to create a space to address comfort under a well-guided schedule. Do we need space to enjoy our comforts, or comforts to create space for us? It is what we must decide—once and for all.
It is often argued that modern life has empowered humans more than ever. While thinkers like Harari and Pinker rightly highlight how technology and autonomy have empowered individuals, this freedom can lead to ethical disengagement when it is not paired with civic responsibility. This is not to say that technological progress or personal comfort are inherently unethical, but when left unchecked, they risk replacing moral responsibility with passive convenience.
A society may develop a freer and wealthier atmosphere, but if individuals fail to act for the common good, the claim of a “safe zone” ideology shall only result in the worst possible scenario for those who prefer comfort to hard work. As Putnam (2000) warns, individualism without civic commitment leads to social fragmentation. Once a society gets disintegrated, the other things, like judging the people, lack of empathy and exclusiveness, will follow like a chain reaction to destroy the very fabric of the society. Putnam shows that when communities lose social capital—such as trust, empathy, and civic participation—social fragmentation follows, making judgement and exclusion more common (Putnam, 2000).
A wise word, in the wrong setting, falls flat. Bakhtin (1981) suggests that words shape social relations—but if those words lose context or sincerity, they become noise. Violence can be verbal; so can silence (Žižek, 2008). A morally bankrupt culture can weaponise both. And on the lighter side, life draws us back to ancient architecture, where mismatched fragments of history and tangled cultural biases confront us like cobwebs in forgotten corners (Assmann, 2011; Nora, 1989). These relics remind us that progress is not linear. Even an amicable discourse cannot always bind people to action when moral urgency calls (Arendt, 1958). As Nietzsche (1886) notes, even the most eloquent word can spoil the moment if it lacks truth.
Our comfort level must not come at the cost of our value system. We rush past the orphaned values of inclusiveness, accountability, and humility. Who will take care of the moral orphans of our time? Comfort, though desirable, suppresses moral awareness. When an individual consciously seeks discomfort, justice, honesty, compassion and truth can further strengthen the very ethical spine of the society that can, in reciprocity, ensure our collective growth. This means we must turn our heads from passive ease toward active ethical obligations. Only by considering significant discomfort can we reclaim the ethical foundations eroded by the unchecked pursuit of ease.
