The Sorites Paradox

By adding one grain of sand at a time, when does a heap of sand become a heap? After one? Nope. After two? Nope. Imagine sitting in front of you a heap of sand. Remove one grain of sand at a time and at every removed piece of sand ask this question: is it still a heap? It begs the question, when is a heap not a heap?

Alan Turing, what a guy. Father to the modern day computer (presumably by knocking up some sort of hybrid android), Turing was part mathematician, part cryptanalysis, part logician, the sum of which added together in a more technological savvy age as the 1940's, gave him insight into creating the Turing machine, put simply, a machine that could be fed commands. Turing was also responsible for cracking the famous German Enigma code during World War 2 and saved countless lives by deciphering the German messages. In a generation where computers are synonymous with modern day life, we owe Mr Turing a debt of gratitude.

One little detail in the Turing legacy I failed to mention: Turing committed suicide in 1954 by cyanide poisoning for being homosexual. In those bleak days remaining in the closet wasn't just for the usual reasons someone stays closeted; the laws of the day forbid it. Harsh laws too.  When he was prosecuted 2 years earlier he was given the option of gaol (hey, I just wanna spell it the Australian way) or chemical castration. He chose the lesser of those two evils (erm, that is he chose the chemical castration option, which isn't exactly what it sounds like, god forbid) and thus brought upon the beginning of the end for Turing; a sad ending to a brilliant man’s life.

The crux of the story: British ethologist Richard Dawkins was amongst those who signed the petition for an official government apology and in 2009 the British government led by Tony Blair issued an apology 'for the appalling way he was treated'.  Some sort of justice had finally been served. Meanwhile in Australia in 2008, Kevin Rudd made a historic speech in which he apologised to the Stolen Generation; an apology that had been wished for by the aboriginal community for many years. It was met somewhat controversially amongst the public. I realise there are other factors that come into play in the Turing/Stolen Generation comparison, but the idea I’m trying to convey here remains the same nonetheless.

I recall a friend of mine saying around the time of Rudd's apology that 'we don't need to apologise because it was not any of us that did anything wrong.' Fair enough you might conclude, except that if that is the case, why did the British government need to apologise to Turing? After all, no one associated with the 2009 government was affiliated with the government of Turing’s day. Turing and The Stolen Generation were merely victims of that time period where different rules reigned in contrast to today’s enlightened society. Whether white Australians wronged the Stolen Generation is beyond the scope of this article, however. My focus here is that morals are not clear cut. We try our best with what we think is the right decision based upon our knowledge at the time. Knowledge it would seem, is indeed power.

Right and wrong is something we distinguish between at an early age, but life is complex and not as straight forward as that in every situation. There are the horrors of moral dilemmas (please be sure to check out ‘the trolley problem’ from Google).Take abortion for example. Murder is a sin to be sure, but just what constitutes murder? Stepping on an ant? Well why not? It has (limited) consciousness does it not? When does a baby become aware? 6 weeks? 20 weeks? I usually consider myself as the age I turn on my birthday, but in reality, I existed before my actual birthday. There is no one strict line in the sand, rather, there are several, and they all depend on personal beliefs, religions etc. It may be there is no black and white answer, merely shades of grey (perhaps 50 who knows).
There are examples everywhere. How many Tests must a cricket player have played at a minimum to qualify for a greatest ever team? Fifty is a response I’ve heard before, but what about in the 19th century when playing 35 tests was a huge deal? Where is the change over into ‘modern cricket’? Here’s the thing: There is no defining time.

It is we who decide when a heap becomes a heap. There is no fundamental law or ruling that states when that heap of sand becomes a heap of sand. Morality is a complicated and subjective thing.