“What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So a slice of bread is better than eternal bliss.” The above is a personal favourite illustration of a paradox. And this paradox gets even more interesting when the “slice of bread” is substituted for anything; after all, anything is better than nothing, therefore anything is better than eternal bliss. Enough of the word games; a paradox is a statement that contradicts itself but may seem to make sense in a senseless manner. Assuming readers are broadly attuned to paradoxes now, here is abrainteaser: which form of government is better than nothing:democracy or a dictatorship? Have fun! Before moving forward, a word of appreciation for the editor:in all fairness, it is rather courageous to run a column that proclaims to be based on devil’s advocacy and consistently challenges the bandwagon. Rest assured, views that run contrary to the conformity bias, cultivated mostly by seersucker illusion, have the propensity to culminate in social alienation of the protagonist; the way simpleminded Pakistanis passionately defend views, originating from their favourite anchors on the idiot box, is absolutely amazing. In this hostile environment, publishing, even with someone else’s by-line, that democracy, freedom of speech and capitalism is all an illusion created to fool the masses. On a separate note, henceforth all attempts will be made to articulate views in simple English, and not experiment or venture into vocabulary adventures motivated by self-improvement. Dear readers, views and feedback are necessary for fortifying, crystallising or even eradicating views given herein, so use the email below, and generously. As far as paradoxes go, the most famous of them all, how Achilles can never beat the tortoise, perhaps has an ironic resemblance with Pakistan’s fight against corruption. It begins with the great Greek hero challenging the tortoise and foolishly giving him a head start of a kilometer. By the time Achilles runs the kilometer, the tortoise has walked an additional 500 metres, and when Achilles covers those 500 metres, the tortoise has walked another 250 metres. And when a frustrated Achilles reaches that 250-metre mark, the tortoise has walked 125 metres more, and so on and so forth. Logically, Achilles can never overtake the tortoise since every time he covers the previous lead, the tortoise has walked half of that more and this continues over an infinite series of smaller and smaller distances with Achilles never beating the tortoise, unless of course he picks up a huge stone and hurls it at the tortoise. In summary, the war against corruption is a paradox and the only way to get results is definitely not procrastinating over legislature.Eliminating corruption across the board, irrespective, is the answer. Admittedly, this raises a somewhat similar moral dilemma faced by Achilles when he decides to crush the tortoise to win the race; the question then is: is winning that important? Moral dilemmas are situations where there are two options with each having associated moral reasons requiring consideration. For instance, how many Pakistanis will, armed with a bazooka, just to make it interesting, shoot the last pair of lions, assuming that all the rest have died in an epidemic and these two lions are the only ones on the entire globe, ferociously charging a group of babies? Hopefully, everyone will have retorted “To hell with the lions, endangered or not” and bang! Now assume that the babies are the houbara bustard, an endangered species that are being shot at by Middle Eastern guests visiting Pakistan but note that there are still Pakistani babies involved. The guests can potentially restrict Pakistani labour employed in their country, the UAE, which potentially will make life miserable, with risk of fatality, for babies of the affected Pakistani labourers. The bazooka is still there so what is the morally correct course of action? The trolley problem is perhaps the most famous example of moral dilemmas. Amad guy named Modi, nothing to do with theacross-the-border Prime Minister (PM), except perhaps the madness part, has tied five people on a railway track right in the path of a rushing trolley. Now imagine standing right next to a big fat guy on a bridge over that very track, and that the bridge does not have a parapet. Shoving the fat guy onto the track, since the imbecile is in a stooping position at the edge of the bridge presumablyeager to witness the disaster, is simple.Doing so will save the five people by derailing the trolley. Unfortunately, but obviously, no more fat guy. So, now, how many will shove, with the intent to kill, the poor unknown innocent fat guy, to save five unknown guys? Amazingly, a study reported inThe Economist a few years ago, found that 10 percent of experimental subjects were willing to throw the proverbial fat guy onto the track. Extracts from The Economist’s article are enlightening: “Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro then correlated the results from the trolleyology with those from the personality tests. They found a strong link between utilitarian answers to moral dilemmas (push the fat guy off the bridge) and personalities that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended to view life as meaningless…That does not make utilitarianism wrong. Crafting legislation -one of the main things that Bentham and Mill wanted to improve -inevitably involves riding roughshod over someone’s interests. Utilitarianism provides a plausible framework for deciding who should get trampled. The results obtained by Dr Bartels and Dr Pizarro do, though, raise questions about the type of people who you want making the laws. Psychopathic, Machiavellian misanthropes? Apparently, yes.”And to make it abundantly clear, politicians are the ones who legislate. “They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price,” Thomas Jefferson. To conclude, solve the paradox: the great hero, Achilles, if he wants to win the race, will have to eliminate the Machiavellian tortoise. The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant