The moral dimension

Notwithstanding the non-conformist views of some philosophers questioning the existence of an eternal, cosmic morality, we commonly hold that society is held together, in a manner of speaking, by a moral sense which finds reflection in its cultural, political and legal structures. Laws, government and politics are measured in terms of being either in accord with or in breach of a morality for the promotion or negation of the social good.

Broadly speaking, there appear three approaches to the understanding of the nature and purpose of morality in a social context as set apart from the purely ethical. In the one case, it is conceived as beliefs and rules of conduct which take sanction from the metaphysical, with the objective of giving meaning and purpose to human life.

Contrarily, morality is viewed as a contingent, socio-cultural construct predicated upon norms aimed at bridling human drives for civilisation to evolve and prosper. Morality is perceived as a human artifact, changing and evolving in a historical perspective. Slavery, feudalism, gender- bias which were accepted as tolerable institutions at certain periods of history became unacceptable as thought and knowledge evolved and with it the moral categories defining these institutions.

From around the mid nineteenth century a different approach to understanding morality emerged in Europe conceiving morality as rationalisation for physiological or biological human drives or instincts.

Whatever the divergent approaches to understanding human propriety, there is broad consensus that morality provides an indispensable basis for peaceful and purposeful existence of humans in a collection or society. Commonly accepted and observed set of guidelines for individual and social conduct are considered prerequisites for social coherence, purposive cooperation and meaningful progress. What is good and bad, right or wrong, correct and deviant, valid or errant are like elemental rudders that keep the ship of society on an even keel, stable and strong, battling and overcoming storms of worldly crises — be they political, economic or ideological in nature.

The central issues of our present day predicament lend themselves to many divergent interpretations, some opinionated, others more informed, yet others fired by partisan passions. But rarely are questions raised about the distinct, growing absence of a commonly agreed moral sense of what is right and what is wrong. It is this phenomenon, not commonly appreciated or discussed, that poses the real threat to social coherence, meaningfulness, tolerance and progress. When societies and opinion leaders lose a common moral sense, when they debate issues from contending moral perspectives, the community teeters on moral and social anarchy. People lose their shared compass of right and wrong. Each person or group becomes a law unto themselves.

Modern day means of propaganda aimed at changing sub consciously- led conduct and opinions pose a serious threat to society. It can lead to abjuring a unified, agreed consensual moral standard of judgment and decision making. One person’s or group’s right becomes another’s wrong.

We notice that different stakeholders in the present political crises invoke the same concepts of justice, constitutionality and democracy but appeal to various and often divergent criteria or standards of morality which appear to each as superior and more sacrosanct than those of others. Each considers its own interpretation of what is correct with reference to its own perspective and definition of these concepts or institutions. Moral considerations and arguments become hostage to self-interests.

Morality becomes the reflection of baser human instincts of fear and the urge for ascendancy and power. In a brutal contest for political hegemony and might there are no holds barred. Morality and righteousness is bent to one’s own advantage. My food becomes someone else’s poison and vice versa.

The broader question that underlies the present straits, mostly unconsciously and rarely overtly formulated, is whether, at the individual or at the social level, we have entered an era of the normal standards of morality, propriety and legalese becoming secondary to passing political considerations and a brand of socio-political narrative fed on passionate emotions rather than evidenced reason? More essentially, but from the point of view of agreement on a set of moral guidelines, more dangerous in its absence, have we entered a phase of sharp polarisation tearing apart the social fabric of peace and accommodation at individual, family and social levels?

Are the major social and political stakeholders acting out of convictions based upon lasting perceptions of right and wrong or are their motivations imbued by narrower, selfish considerations in a bitter power game? The question assumes far more significance when viewed in the context of the greater and far more imperative aspect of the interest of the state and country.

Questioning the legality of actions of different stakeholders in the fray is resorted to by invoking moral standards. But these moral yardsticks themselves mirror partisanship, reflective of instincts towards self-assertion and power seeking. There is no common ground where communal harmony and enrichment are ensured. Self-interest replaces common good.

The spectacle of a vote of no-confidence being contested as a life and death issue, of non-acceptance of the principle of peaceful transfer of government, disbelief in democracy being the best instrument for accountability, of the legal system being subverted to avoid arrest or trial, of an arrest leading to arson and attacks on the security apparatus of state with mutinous intent, begs the question whether we have entered into an era of contesting alternate moralities and legal discourse.

In this hour of acrimonious contest between competing perceptions of righteousness it is often forgotten that our latent fears and our insecurities play such an important role in shaping our apparent rational thought and conduct.

In such situations, the essential kernel of an agreed social and moral compact, that is the binding tether holding a civilised society together, snaps. Morality ruptures and a community irretrievably descends into a chaotic state where combative standards of right and wrong rip apart bonds holding society intact, in an agreed compact, providing a necessary foundation for human progress.

What is scary beyond imagination is that the ordinary populace is at the mercy of shadows on the walls of caves that can cave in any time under the inexorable burden of a fractured moral consensus, of a fragmented and dismembered sense of right and wrong. Time for the initiated to ponder.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 24^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.