“Democracy”, Mr. Vajpayee emphasised, “was more a moral than just a constitutional or legal system. While constitution and law are important, the prestige of Parliament is its life-giving strength (Pranshakti) and this must be bolstered by observing morality and ethics”. (G.B. Pant Award for the best Parliamentarian of the year 1994; Times of India, Aug.18, 1994, p. 1)
“Does morality hold any value in this age of corruption and competition”, asked the army-retired bank manager, after his long quarrel with the TTE while I was travelling with him from Kanpur to Lucknow [1993]. Though he held a second class ticket, yet knowing that he should not travel in the second class sleeper coach, yet he boarded in my compartment at Kanpur with his family. And caught by the TTE, he first started in mere argument that everybody is travelling not minding about the rule. When the TTE, not yielding to his arguments, started to fine him, the Bank Officer began to quarrel with the TTE. Finally I had to interfere when the Bank Manager started to use unparliamentary words against TTE, even threatening to beat him with his chappel, if he (TTE) did not fine the rest of the passengers in the same compartment (I had my second class sleeper ticket).
Finally a compromise was reached, and only charging the actual rate, the TTE left the compartment. He could not collect the fine because already he had collected some fives and tens from the rest of the passengers. After a long gap of silence the Bank Officer and I entered into discussion, and in the course of our talk he asked this question.
Though I did not expect such a question from an educated man, that too a retired army officer, I said, “I know that the TTE is a corrupt fellow. We all know that we are living in a morally degraded society. But simply blaming the society for all its corruption, imagining as if we are not part of it, won’t solve this problem. My immediate concern to interfere in this matter was not to protect the TTE or to help him to uphold the law. My only concern was your two sons (12 and 10 years respectively). Anything your children are going to learn in this world is first from their parents. They may be very much influenced by the world as they are growing up, and the modern world is largely depriving them of the fellowship of their parents and elders. Yet still the first impression that they will get is from their parents. Now they have seen you using unparliamentary words, that too before their mother, and the way you threatened the TTE to beat him even with chapels, etc, would definitely make its own impression on their young minds. Now tell me what kind of morality would you expect from them as they grow up?”
The Bank Manager remained silent for a few minutes. After some thought he said, “No, I will bring them up in such a way that they will face their challenges and learn how to survive, rather than to think about MORALITY.” THIS INDEED SHOCKED ME; what about you?
What does MORAL actually mean?
I would like to hear practical answers rather than philosophical ideas.
Welcoming your reply,
Dayanand
Participant One:
I am 33 years old. When I was a child, there was a general understanding that the reasons for being moral were two-fold:
1. You sow what you reap. If you are moral and righteous, you will have a good life here on earth.
2. Fear of God. God is watching you and your deeds and will surely punish you for wrongdoing, either in this life or the life after.
As an adult, I realised that there is no direct correlation between morality and how well you do in life. Immoral people seem to prosper as much and in some cases more than moral people. BUT, I still hold morality very high because I believe that this life is not all there is. I am afraid most modern people seem to not think very much beyond this life, which is one of the reasons there is no compelling reason to be moral. Maybe, in some cases, it is fear of society, or the law and even God. The reason for wanting to be moral should be Love of God rather than fear.
February 16, 2007
Thanks, S…., for sharing your views.
In my sharing often I say that most of the time we uphold morality ‘not by choice but by chance’. As you rightly mentioned, fear of society is one of the reasons for this, at least in India. We have a ‘shame’ conscience; until others see us or we get caught, small level moral lapses are ok for us. The general answer when we are caught is, ‘who is not doing it? Who is perfect? This is kali yuga!’
A guilty conscience also won’t help much. Those who believe in absolute values might shun immorality. And if they fall, then they will confess and repent. But either because of human nature, which often fails or becomes familiar with such rituals (of confession and repentance), this so-called ‘guilty conscience’ also doesn’t help much. However, it does help one come to terms with oneself rather than blaming other factors for moral lapses. It is worth note what Kakar says about this, ‘The Indian mind has a harder time experiencing and expressing anger and guilt but is more comfortable than the Western individualistic psyche in dealing with feelings of sympathy and shame’.— Sudhir Kakar & Katharina Kakar ,Indians Portrait of a People, New Delhi, Penguin Books, [2007], 2009, p. 199
I would rather not say ‘fear of god’ but fear of retribution forces us to think twice before doing seriously immoral things. However, fear of god in relation to ‘immorality’ is fear of the punishment that he will give. But I personally feel that ‘love for god’ should motivate us rather than ‘fear of god’. However this love ‘for’ god is not possible unless we understand the love ‘of’ god. But in our Indian worldview most of the time we use god to get some benefit for our earthly needs, rather than honestly seeking his love to overcome our shortcomings. Of course, our Indian scriptures have plenty of references to seeking god’s grace to overcome moral lapses and make one perfect. Yet in practical life, our approach to god is not for what he is but for what he could/should do for our mundane needs. Exceptions are there, but I am talking about common people. Here alone spirituality and not rituality will help one to rise above his common situation and seek god for his own sake and experience his love through bhakti to uphold ethics in practical life and also prepare our atman for the world to come.
I think we should not link ‘prosperity’ with ‘morality’. Morality is more related with what we ‘are’ than what we ‘have’. That is why for me the answer to the question: ‘Who you are’ is not self-realization (in modern vedantic terms) but ‘what you are when you are alone with yourself’—not even before god, but with yourself.
Though I agree with you that we have to keep in our mind about the life to come, yet morality needs to be first related with our earthly life, for the sake of life itself. To enjoy life legitimately is one important aspect of the purushartas (aims of life—they are four, dharma, artha, kama and moksha). About this Krishna says in the Gita (7:11) that ‘I remain the pleasure in every life which is not opposed to dharma (righteousness).’
Next, morality is related to our life in relationship with others. There it should work first, rather than merely to consider morality for the world beyond this life. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’, says Muktiveda. No one wants to be immoral to oneself (when he is alone with himself). Then, it should be reflected in our relationship here on earth first.
Yes, ‘law’ several times creates fear in the mind. However, at least in India we have lots of loopholes to overcome this also. Except Sibu Soran, as far as my knowledge goes, not a single politician was ever punished for any crime. In general those who have money, power and authority escape the law. Of course, because of the media, in a few cases like Jessica Lal and Priyadarshani Matto, the culprits are punished, that too after a long battle by the affected people. Yet everywhere in the world ‘law’ alone is not stopping crime. Some break the law intentionally, but most unintentionally. And we are all well aware that the purpose of law is not to punish the criminal but to protect the innocent. The justice system is there to ensure that even if several criminals go unpunished, not one innocent person should be punished. So law, as it is, though it creates fear, yet it does not help much to uphold morality.
So I will narrow down to two levels; reverence for god and respect for relationships should be the starting points. Those who have no faith in god, can still do it out of respect for human relationships.
Finally, what is morality? In ‘Times Life’ (Sunday supplement to The Times of India, Bangalore, Feb. 18, 2007, p. 2) there came an article ‘Morality is all in the mind….’ The author of this article, Nona Walia, quotes Marc Hauser (Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong) saying, ‘Moral judgment is less about psychology, and more about biology’. According to him we are genetically programmed to have a rigid concept of morality. The other view (according to Aamir Raza Hussain ) is ‘inner instinct;’ and finally according to ‘Playmate Nicole Narain, who sold her 13-minute sex videotape with Colin Farrell, “Morality is very personal”.’
An advantage in making morality either biological, genetic, instinctive or personal, is that it helps accommodate everyone’s expectations. But as this leads to situation ethics, who is the victim and who is the culprit also becomes relative. For example, for Narain, as morality is personal, she sold her videotape—either for money or to create news. But what about her partner in this act? Is he a victim of her view of morality or a partner? If such situation ethics become the norm, apart from serious crimes like murder, theft, etc., other social offenses will be justified. For example, now in India ‘the draft National Policy on Criminal Justice, authored by the Madhava Menon Committee, has responded to the demand of the National Commission for Women (NCW) to de-criminalise adultery by recommending that it should be treated as a social, rather than criminal offense’ (Bangalore Times, Feb. 17, 2007, p. 1). Here I am not discussing whether it should be treated as a crime or social offense. However, in answer to the final question ‘What about woman’, the expert’s response is: “At present, Section 497 of IPC [Indian Penal Code], provides for jail up to five years as well as a fine for adultery. Interestingly, the NCW has opposed a proposal to amend Section 497 to bring women also under the purview. Under the IPC, the woman shall not be liable even as an abettor, based on the reasoning that a woman involved in illicit relationship with a married man is a victim rather than author of the crime.” Such views decide the crime or social offense from a gender point of view, not taking both partners in this act as ‘persons’, ‘human beings’ equally responsible.
Such imbalance is inevitable once morality is placed in the human realm of biology, genetics and personal preference. However, for those who believe that god has expectations from human beings based on his imparting absolute ethical standards for everyone—whether man or woman—there is hope of justice and also progress in this area. As such, absolute moral views cannot be changed according to the whim and fancy of anyone; there is hope for us to measure our progress universally as one humanity. Of course, some ‘social offenses’ can be relative. In such areas most of the scriptures might also be silent. But regarding basic moral codes, the violation of which will affect family, community, society and nation (human relationship as such), clear teaching is given in various scriptures. If in the name of ‘religion’ we reject them, then we alone have to face the consequences—as god has given us free will either to reject or obey.
Dayanand
February 18, 2007, 6.50 pm.
Participant Two:
Morality is something very important and is something that is constantly evolving.
Unfortunately, for many it changes according to circumstances. If it benefits us, we choose it and if it doesn’t benefit us, then twist it.
I think it should evolve more in the positive direction. None of us are perfect. So our morality is not perfect either. But as we realise the higher standard of morality each time, we should be willing to accept it.
17, 2007 6:14 PM
Thanks, B…, for sharing your view. I agree that we must make progress in a positive direction. But my problem is with the concept of ‘evolving’ in this. This makes it become relative. As I pointed out in my response to S…, at least those who take ‘moral’ issues seriously should begin from the absolute moral views given by the scriptures, rather than supposing there is evolution according to the need and time. Any standard of morality in our terms is going to be relative, whereas the absolute standard given by scriptures establishes a minimum expectation and ‘standard’ for us to measure, improve and work towards; evolving with god in a positive direction.
Dayanand
February 18, 2007, 11.50 pm.
Response from Participant Two: Wow! Swamiji, that was awesome and quite challenging. I completely agree with you on the fact that morality based on fear is not really complete. Rather it should emerge from the love of God and love for man.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to morality is, i think, self-absorption. ‘I’ always comes first. It is something i struggle with as well. But i guess it is a battle that started when we were born and will continue for a long time to come.
About evolution of morality – i will clarify my thoughts. Since my thoughts were pretty raw when i typed it in first it has turned out to be something i really didn’t mean.
I should have said ‘our understanding of what is the moral standard is constantly evolving’, rather than saying ‘morality is constantly evolving’.
I too believe that there are moral absolutes. And we are constantly trying to achieve that – sort of taking it step by step. The moment we think we have become moral by what our understanding of the moral absolute is, we are faced with a higher level of understanding the moral absolute.
And i believe that we should be willing to make way for higher level of interpretation each time and not run away from the challenge it poses.
B… February 22, 2007 8:24 AM
The following news (The Times of India, Bangalore, Feb. 20, p.17) says: Moral maze: Our sins have changed. As Society Evolves So Eoes Our Sense Of Virtue and Vice, Good and Evil.
‘We all like to think that we are pretty ethical at heart. But just how moral are you in everyday life? Are you even sure you know what is bad, as opposed to vaguely risqué’? says Shane Watson. To prove his point he further says,’ It can be confusing. For example, there is behaviour that’s legal but, newly, morally reprehensible (that’ll be wearing chinchilla) and behaviour that’s sort of illegal, but no longer considered wrong (the current fuzziness surrounding marijuana). The fact is, the old oral code has been replaced by an alternative one tailored to our more sophisticated modern needs (or so we like to tell ourselves)….’
Then he enlists with his comments on the following areas where ‘legal vs. moral’ clashes: Wearing fur; Trans fats and Ceesy Wotsits; Zeros and skinnies; Smoking; Racism; Sexual harassment; Eco-apathy; Infidelity; Shoplifting; Swearing; Lying; Breaking the law; Promiscuity and Alcohol abuse.
What he says about Infidelity again insist on what I consider important to uphold morality: Respect for others:
Infidelity—This is still frowned upon, but now (blame Charles and Camilla for rosetinting an old taboo) cheating on your partner is judged on a case-by-case basis. The modern line—that nobody strays in a good marriage, therefore both parties are equally to blame—has taken the sting out of infidelity.
Infidelity results not because some bad marriage only. However it makes a good marriage as bad one. There mutual respect is lost. Because, the unfaithful partner in the marriage uses people as a commodity to seek pleasure. As s/he has no respect for the other person as his/her equal, the innocent partner now also has to share the blame. The person who suffered now also become a victim blamed as equal partner for a bad marriage. This is inevitable in every kind of situation ethics.
Dayanand
Mathigiri, February 20, 2007, 11.45 am.
Participant: Three
Let me play devil’s advocate—
Morality for our generation is a frail concept, often reduced to a mere list of do’s and don’ts. There’s no clear black or white; instead, there are expanding gray areas. Wasn’t it the father’s duty to ensure a comfortable journey for his family, by any means necessary? In the end, everything worked out: the TTE earned some extra cash, and the family enjoyed a nice ride.
We need morality for society to function smoothly, but isn’t greasing palms part of that smoothness? Why get bogged down by these issues?
After all, things are destined to deteriorate over time. Can we resist the tide of Kalyug?
The bank manager was right when he said that children need to learn to survive. Even evolution teaches us that the fittest survive, not necessarily the most moral.
Ashish… February 19, 2007, at 9:40 AM
Thank you, A…, for playing devil’s advocate. We need such voices to sharpen our perspectives.
You said, “We need morality for the smooth functioning of society.” But whose society? One person’s freedom ends where another’s begins. If we expect others to adjust, they have the same expectation of us. But life isn’t just about adjustments; it’s about values. Without values, we might as well be animals, where only the fittest survive. In that case, we wouldn’t need a conscience, laws, government, or judiciary.
As a father, the bank manager’s duty was to ensure his family’s comfort. If his goal was merely to teach his children survival, he could have just bribed the TTE instead of confronting him. Initially, he seemed to be fighting for values, as many passengers from Kanpur didn’t have proper tickets. But when the TTE asked for his ticket, he wasn’t willing to pay the penalty or offer a bribe. Suddenly, he became a champion for upholding the law, demanding that the TTE fine all those without proper tickets.
According to the law, if you board the sleeper class without a proper ticket, you must pay both the extra charge and a fine. However, since the TTE had already accepted bribes, he couldn’t challenge the manager. If he wanted to, the TTE could have called the Railway Police to evict the manager or charge him with disturbing a government employee. Those who paid small bribes wouldn’t have betrayed the TTE. If the manager challenged the police, they would likely say, “Get off the train and come to the station,” and the TTE would handle the rest.
In these contradictions, the manager neither taught his children values nor survival tactics by paying a small bribe for a smooth ride to Lucknow. As a bank manager and ex-army person, he thought he could confront the TTE, but it was mere egotism.
Yes, there are gray areas in every field. But people with clear convictions strive to uphold personal ethics without constantly shifting lanes. Not everyone can fight against corruption, nor can everyone escape it. But instead of justifying it in the name of “Kalyug,” it should at least trouble their conscience. Those who silence their inner voice in the name of survival will ultimately perish, unable to live and share values. What the manager did with the TTE, his children will eventually do with him. If he questions them, they may confront him in the same spirit, as he taught them survival, not values.
As I mentioned earlier in my response to S…, reverence for God and respect for relationships should be the foundation of ethics in life. We must reflect on our words and deeds in the light of God’s absolute values. For those who do not believe in God, their inner voice must guide them, as the Tirukkural (a famous Tamil text) advises: Do not hold as truth what you know to be false, for your conscience will burn when you lie (verse 293).
Leave a Reply