Morals are man-made; To be precise, they are 'men-made' ie. made by the society. Morality in its various avatars is discernable even among animal 'societies'. A bee or ant colony has morals!
So what is the basis of morality?
Is it the narrow minded, racist, casteist, prejudiced views of our semi-civilised ancestors as enshrined in the 'sacred' texts of various religions?
Or is it, as claimed by some of the better parts in those religious texts, based on the 'Golden rule'? The Pali canon of Theravada buddhism, the Bible and the Gita contain passages mentioning the golden rule.
To quote wikipedia:
I dont think so.
Let us not look towards the invisible man up above the clouds or some persons with exclusive rights of communication with him to decide on this topic. Instead, let us look at nature.
Buddha talked of four noble truths. But far more profound and more truthful - is the set of three noble truths set forth by Charles Darwin.
1. Variation
2. Natural selection(Survival of the fittest)
3. Inheritance
Variation/diversity is the most apparent of the three truths. We see bacteria and viruses mutating right under our noses. But the crucial and most inportant truth is, in my opinion, survival of the fittest.
It's a dog eat dog world. 'Survival' is the very purpose of life. We dont have to imagine any mystical other-wordly purposes that we need to fulfill!
The moral or dharma that is common to all living things is survival. That is the only observable, verifiable and objective moral there is in nature.
'Survival paramo dharmah'(Survival is the highest moral) is my version of the saying 'ahimsa paramo dharmah'(Non-injury is the highest moral).
Selfish and ruthless as it may seem, it is not quite that extreme when you think about it.
Even the golden rule, as beautiful and warm as it sounds, is really a glorified/sexed up version of the simple law of reciprocity.
...........
Individual wants to survive.
Individual has better chance of survival in a group; Hence society is formed.
Society needs to survive for the sake of the individuals;
Hence the law of reciprocity among its members :
"I won't hurt you and you don't hurt me".
..........
It is as simple as that!
That is why I began the essay by saying that society made up the morals.
The concept of morality was created based on the need to survive. So anyone breaking the law of reciprocity is a threat to the survival of the society and hence needs to be punished.
With regard to the punishment, we are becoming more and more humane as history tells us.
If man was to roam the forest alone like the lone tusker, the only moral would be 'to survive'; So when you come across another man, he is a competition to survival, a potential threat and/or a potential food item. So you kill him and if hungry, eat him...
Some(or most) of you might be horrified by the fact that I seem to condone cannibalism.
But it is a historical fact that many ancient tribes were and possible a few tribes still are cannibalistic.
After all, we arbitrarily draw a line as to what meat to eat and what not to (btw I am a vegeterian!).
But as the matter stands, men are not loners but social animals - to use the cliched phrase. So we need to confirm to the law of reciprocity. We shouldn't go about killing other humans.
Nonetheless, two things that are condoned by modern society would drive home my point:
(i) We can kill other humans in self defence. This is an indirect confirmation that survival is the highest moral there is.
(ii) We can eat other humans(already dead - not killed by us!) in dire situations like being stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash.
Excluding those extreme cases, we should follow the norms that were created for the survival of the society. But as the above two cases clearly indicate, when the individual's survival is threatened, the society's law is suspended by the society itself.
This brings me to the point I wanted to make from all this discussion. Any moral judgement or rule/law that goes beyond the question of the survival of the society or that of the individual is really 'unnatural'. The only natural law is survival - of the individual and of the society.
So when a religious law or a civil code bans or deems as punishable an act which does not put the constituents of the society in danger, it is unnatural. In fact, it is bullshit.
So I say, gay sex is not unnatural, my dear Mr.Azad, but section 377 which bans it is!
Note : A recent comment by Mr.Azad, the health minister of India, provoked this response from me.
Ref -
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ghulam-nabi-azad-calls-homosexuality-unnatural-and-a-disease-116761
So what is the basis of morality?
Is it the narrow minded, racist, casteist, prejudiced views of our semi-civilised ancestors as enshrined in the 'sacred' texts of various religions?
Or is it, as claimed by some of the better parts in those religious texts, based on the 'Golden rule'? The Pali canon of Theravada buddhism, the Bible and the Gita contain passages mentioning the golden rule.
To quote wikipedia:
- One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)
- One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule )
I dont think so.
Let us not look towards the invisible man up above the clouds or some persons with exclusive rights of communication with him to decide on this topic. Instead, let us look at nature.
Buddha talked of four noble truths. But far more profound and more truthful - is the set of three noble truths set forth by Charles Darwin.
1. Variation
2. Natural selection(Survival of the fittest)
3. Inheritance
Variation/diversity is the most apparent of the three truths. We see bacteria and viruses mutating right under our noses. But the crucial and most inportant truth is, in my opinion, survival of the fittest.
It's a dog eat dog world. 'Survival' is the very purpose of life. We dont have to imagine any mystical other-wordly purposes that we need to fulfill!
The moral or dharma that is common to all living things is survival. That is the only observable, verifiable and objective moral there is in nature.
'Survival paramo dharmah'(Survival is the highest moral) is my version of the saying 'ahimsa paramo dharmah'(Non-injury is the highest moral).
Selfish and ruthless as it may seem, it is not quite that extreme when you think about it.
Even the golden rule, as beautiful and warm as it sounds, is really a glorified/sexed up version of the simple law of reciprocity.
...........
Individual wants to survive.
Individual has better chance of survival in a group; Hence society is formed.
Society needs to survive for the sake of the individuals;
Hence the law of reciprocity among its members :
"I won't hurt you and you don't hurt me".
..........
It is as simple as that!
That is why I began the essay by saying that society made up the morals.
The concept of morality was created based on the need to survive. So anyone breaking the law of reciprocity is a threat to the survival of the society and hence needs to be punished.
With regard to the punishment, we are becoming more and more humane as history tells us.
If man was to roam the forest alone like the lone tusker, the only moral would be 'to survive'; So when you come across another man, he is a competition to survival, a potential threat and/or a potential food item. So you kill him and if hungry, eat him...
Some(or most) of you might be horrified by the fact that I seem to condone cannibalism.
But it is a historical fact that many ancient tribes were and possible a few tribes still are cannibalistic.
After all, we arbitrarily draw a line as to what meat to eat and what not to (btw I am a vegeterian!).
But as the matter stands, men are not loners but social animals - to use the cliched phrase. So we need to confirm to the law of reciprocity. We shouldn't go about killing other humans.
Nonetheless, two things that are condoned by modern society would drive home my point:
(i) We can kill other humans in self defence. This is an indirect confirmation that survival is the highest moral there is.
(ii) We can eat other humans(already dead - not killed by us!) in dire situations like being stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash.
Excluding those extreme cases, we should follow the norms that were created for the survival of the society. But as the above two cases clearly indicate, when the individual's survival is threatened, the society's law is suspended by the society itself.
This brings me to the point I wanted to make from all this discussion. Any moral judgement or rule/law that goes beyond the question of the survival of the society or that of the individual is really 'unnatural'. The only natural law is survival - of the individual and of the society.
So when a religious law or a civil code bans or deems as punishable an act which does not put the constituents of the society in danger, it is unnatural. In fact, it is bullshit.
So I say, gay sex is not unnatural, my dear Mr.Azad, but section 377 which bans it is!
Note : A recent comment by Mr.Azad, the health minister of India, provoked this response from me.
Ref -
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ghulam-nabi-azad-calls-homosexuality-unnatural-and-a-disease-116761
No comments:
Post a Comment