*131*7*5*1# AND THE MORAL ARGUMENT

*131*7*5*1# is the portal to open you up to Data heaven (only for MTN believers only). It is funny because, as many people as typed in the code got in. Even in some cases where it came up with an error message, they were still rewarded for their efforts. I knew a guy who utilised a Nokia 3310 and still got into data heaven - got me thinking about salvation and heaven. It doesn't matter your type of phone, even if it is rubber banded with a cracked up screen, so far you type in the code, you get into data heaven. Get it?

But my main concern now is the moral discuss surrounding the utilization of the flaw in the system of the telecommunication company that led many to get as much as 240GB of data valid for three months (I don't know if anyone got greater than this) without paying a dime. Social media was agog with messages from people intimating their friends (and foes) about the "good news" and later a moral discussion surrounding the event. From subscribers, who have been heavily rewarded, to sceptics who are turning believers, to the principled who believe only in getting what they have worked and paid for and even the religious and moral ones who believe it is outright wrong, there have been opinions and counter opinions surrounding the appropriate behaviour to the issue.

For many subscribers, it was a harvest (a bumper one at that!) of all the monies spent both legally and illegally on data subscription. In an age where, "subbing" comes on the priority list before food or water, you can say a lot has been invested. Many are not moved by any "moral" gospel and will tell you up front they are not ready to entertain any judgmental speeches about their supposed "wrong" actions. Others move into jeering and mockery, telling you they will download the latest movies on Netflix for you to watch (God bless you if you do, cause you have just justified their actions) - talk about a cyclical argument (what goes around, comes around).

For the more principled ones, they do not have issues with the people subscribing to it, but will rather pay for their subscription. The idea of "free" does not resonate with their being and they will have none of it. These people on a normal day do not even bother with the "awoof" deals offered by the companies, so a "bumper harvest" to them is far behind the fence.

This brings me to the moral argument surrounding the issue. What is the definition of wrong? Who defines it? When you say something is wrong, what do you mean?

A lot of our moral codes are formed by society. I usually make an argument, that if the generation that have gone past see what we are up to now (particularly with the creative industry), they would roll in their graves. Sometimes, I play back the old R'n'B tunes I used to listen to on my Palito radio (Kamal on Metro FM) at home, and everyone just keeps on with their activities without flinching. I remember playing a song my mum used to tell me to switch off then on the radio (it was a "worldly" song) and now, even though it has not converted to a gospel song, it finds ready acceptance in comparison with the songs available today.

What have we accepted as wrong? In a world of post-truth, where everyone has their "truth" and everything is relative, there is no fundamental basis on which to define right or wrong. In some cultures, they kneel or prostrate to greet their elders, while in others they shake hands or just wave hi (Hello Dave!), where then do you define rightness or wrongness? If we run an autonomous (self- law) belief system, what gives us the right to judge another person?

For the religious, it is a whole lot easier to manage this issue because of the theonomous (God's-law) nature of the religious culture. Everything is defined by "God says" and "God's law". In some instances, we have religious leaders who are tasked with explaining and clarifying the wisdom and intents of the "Holy" book(s), leading to a heteronomos (different-law) belief system, where a few at the top control and dictate the many at the bottom. Even with both belief systems, It is not much of a bother differentiating between right and wrong, all we need do is ask "what does God say about it?" or "what is the interpretation from the Holy book(s)?". Religion has largely affected society, particularly in these parts and though its influence wanes, it is the fundamental framework from which society has been able to move towards balance.

The point now is this, if I ask you what kind of a belief system we operate in and you mention theonomous or heteronomous, I can fault you because we actually do not, save in states where the Islamic "sharia" law is the governing law (which still doesn't say the people are not in themselves autonomous). If you say, we run an autonomous culture, where everyone establishes a set of beliefs for their life, I will agree to an extent, but the problem is this - if we run an autonomous culture, what gives you a right to judge the choices of another? What makes you believe the subscriber to the "bumper harvest" is wrong? From what belief system are you making your judgement. Like I have said to anyone who is willing to listen "Relativism is the demise of truth".

I subscribe to the Judeo-Christian worldview and within my circles would give you my verdict on the matter (you can DM me, lol!). A lot of people start off arguments that will not end up anywhere because they are basing their arguments on different grounds. Before you go judging or bringing out a measure to establish wrongness, ensure that you are on the same belief system or are bringing a value-based judgement that your listener also subscribes to.

By the way, I got a text saying it has been resolved and all "bumper harvests" reversed. Guess we know where MTN stands on the divide!