The Sorites Paradox and the unbearable lightness of hurting

In our country, it is very easy to hurt and to be hurt. The burden on the one who hurts is often limited to a dry apology. Or, what has happened is brushed off with phrases like "forgive me," "we made a mistake," or "we were deceived."

When our property or assets are involved, this burden becomes a bit heavier. But if it is a matter of non-pecuniary damage, well, just drink a glass of cold water and be grateful for your situation.

I am talking about "non-pecuniary damages." Just as it is ignored in our daily lives, the situation is not much different in our legal system. When it comes to non-pecuniary damages, the compensation you might receive is barely enough for a couple of dinners.

The judge deems it so. Yet, there is no such thing in the law.

Unfortunately, non-pecuniary damage is not cared about at all. Even in legal doctrine, the situation has not been addressed comprehensively. What is it, then? They say the objective weight of the non-pecuniary damage is important. How will this objective, meaning impartial, weight be calculated? There is no explanation.

The 15th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has a decision that serves as a lesson: "...while determining the amount of non-pecuniary compensation, the judge must decide in accordance with justice and fairness, utilize legal science, and take into account the social, economic, and moral structure of Turkish society, the actual situation of the parties, and the purchasing power of money. The amount of non-pecuniary compensation ruled by the court has exceeded the limit of reaching the effect of a sense of moral satisfaction and has reached a level that leads to unjust enrichment..."

According to this, the judge must make a decision based on extremely vague, abstract, and "unsatisfying" definitions such as "in accordance with justice and fairness," "the actual situation of the parties," "a sense of moral satisfaction," and "unjust enrichment."

However, everyday language has found a more vivid analogy: "It drives a person to cancer." We experience such setbacks that it is very hard not to go crazy when you think about them one by one. We suffer the consequences of the faulty transactions and indifference of big brands almost every day. Even our state commits terrible negligence. The closest example is the breach of the security of our e-government information.

While even a simple shopping experience can drive a person mad, consider wrongful arrests and human rights violations.

Have you ever looked at the non-pecuniary compensation of those who spent years in prison as a result of faulty and malicious prosecutions? The situation is disgraceful. Or the situation of people whose freedom was taken away right before our eyes by the court.

Let's not beat around the bush: How much non-pecuniary compensation do you think Can Atalay will receive because his imprisonment continues unjustly? 50 thousand TL.

That is, two months of rent in Istanbul, one car loan installment, a few months' salary... 150 days passed from May 29, when he should have regained his freedom, until the Constitutional Court made its decision. 150 days of captivity. And those who violated his freedom are the bodies that are supposed to decide and act in the name of the Turkish Nation. I wonder, was it only Can Atalay who was hurt here? Can Atalay's family, his loved ones, his voters, and the Turkish Nation, upon whose back this lawlessness is loaded... 150 days of unjust imprisonment is worth 50 thousand TL in non-pecuniary compensation. That is approximately 334 TL per day. How cheap!

What did the Court of Cassation say in its decision? "The actual situation of the parties"? "Unjust enrichment"? "A sense of moral satisfaction"?

The parties are clear: On one side is the state, on the other is a representative elected by thousands of voters. Given this, wouldn't a punitive non-pecuniary compensation be necessary? Do our laws prevent this? Not at all. Then what is the obstacle?

The cheapness of human life, freedom, human peace, and happiness... That is how easy it is to hurt.

So, in your opinion, how much compensation would we have to rule to be unfair to the state? Or after what amount of non-pecuniary compensation would we have unjustly enriched Can Atalay? When will Can Atalay experience a sense of moral satisfaction?

These questions take us from the field of law to the field of philosophy: The Sorites (heap) Paradox.

This paradox takes its name from the Greek word σωρός (pronounced: soros), meaning "heap." You might ask, what does a heap have to do with it? This paradox was born from the question of exactly where to draw the line between a mound and a heap.

In summary, the paradox is as follows: Think of a heap of sand. Of course, there are many grains of sand in this heap. If we take one grain of sand, we would still call the pile of sand a "heap." If we take two grains of sand, the situation does not change. If we continue to increase the number of grains of sand we take, at exactly what point do we say this pile of sand is no longer a heap? If we do not think any single grain of sand is special and cannot set a specific limit, we continue to take grains of sand and are forced to call even the last remaining grain of sand a "heap." Yet, of course, one grain of sand does not make a heap. That is why we are facing a paradox.

Our discussion on determining the amount of compensation brings this paradox to mind. Perhaps we cannot draw a very sharp line, but a heap does not emerge from 50 thousand TL either. 50 thousand TL is at most a speed bump with today's money.

The Sorites Paradox was also born from these lands. It is said to have been discovered by the philosopher Eubulides of Miletus in the 4th century BC. So, nothing is a coincidence. As they say, there is sight and there is discernment.

It seems Eubulides was as unsure as I am. It appears that for some of us, it is all the same whether it is a heap or a speed bump. If we want to exalt and protect freedom, peace, happiness, health, and the value of the word, we must protect our spirituality. Whoever touches our spirituality should feel the pain. Perhaps a future where moral weight and hurting are not underestimated is possible. Who knows?