This morning, I was reading a book titled Truth by Hector Macdonald. The author discusses how there is no single version of truth. In one of the chapters, he discusses morality. He says that the definition of morality varies across cultures and times. While reading the book, something struck me. Different cultures have different moral standards. Details aside, what are we trying to achieve through these moral standards? First of all, morality is a group concept. Every organisation has its own definition of morality, and so does every nation, society, and community.
Now, coming to the centre of group morality, first, survival is the most important criterion for the group. Every organisation, society, or nation would like to survive and protect its turf. It will do whatever is possible under the Sun to protect its turf and even to expand. That's why many nations would justify aggression on the lands of other countries, brutality in the name of war, and terrorism in the name of self-defence. Second, the group will try to ensure the survival of all its members. That's why the moral standards of almost every community unanimously condemn killing. At the same time, if a member of the group endangers the group, moral standards generally permit eliminating that member. Third, the group tries to ensure the maximum pleasure of the group as a whole. Almost all societies in the world promote the creation of wealth. People innovate something that makes life easier for others or provides them some comfort or pleasure, and people pay for that, and that's how people become wealthy. The creation of wealth is highly appreciated by almost all societies. Generally, group morality is not concerned with equality. A rich businessman and his future generations may continue to earn wealth effortlessly by investing what they have accumulated, while the poor may continue to suffer in an endless cycle of poverty. Moral standards generally do not address this issue, probably because the group's interests are being served.
Groups try to lay down moral standards for even relationships. Here too, the centre of all the moral standards is the group. The boundaries of the relationships have to be well defined so that the members of the group do not fight among themselves. What is expected of a person as a father, mother, or child is also well defined. What if an individual feels differently? What if two persons want to live together but do not want to marry? What if two males love each other and want to marry? What if somebody married and, post-marriage, realised that he had an inner calling to search for the meaning of life? Live-in is now well recognised; the LGBTQ community has also gained recognition. Sanyasa has been a well-recognised practice of Indian society since time immemorial. Still, life is not easy for those who want to make choices that do not fit within society's moral framework.
Will individual freedom always be confined within the boundaries set by the group's moral standards? There is no straight answer to this question. It all depends upon the strength of the conviction of the individual. Religions began when someone saw what the rest of the group could not see. Scientific breakthroughs take place when a scientist can see what his fellow scientists have not been able to see. No doubt, group moral standards make life workable, but the question is: "Is workability the purpose of life?" There would always be people like Buddha, Jesus, and Socrates who could look beyond the limited framework of workability. Once that happens to a person, his moral standards will be guided by a realisation of reality. Of course, they will become an eyesore to the feudal lords of group morality, whose interests are best served by that framework. That's why these free souls will have to bear the brunt. But once somebody opens the window and sees the bright sunlight, it is not possible to remain under the illusion of night. When somebody sees the Himalayas, nobody can convince him that the small hill in the city is the highest hill in the world.
Comments