This was one of the major questions I struggled with when I was reading “The God Delusion”. Dawkins, of course quoted extensively from the Bible to make the point that wherever we get or morals from, it’s most certainly not from that book. He might be right. I haven’t read the whole testament, but what I have read, i.e. the first few books up to Job, don’t disprove his claims in anyway. The Old testament god seems to be a rather jealous, vindictive, and violent deity. And he eggs on his followers to do the same. Time after time before they enter the promised land, the Israelites are reminded to show the original inhabitants there no mercy and massacre the lot. But there are exhortations to act morally too, even if only with one’s religious kin. There are, however, numerous examples that bear out Dawkins’ claim. But he doesn’t delve further into it and lets it go at that.
Be that as it may, I still think morality had its roots in religion. Not the bible per se but in various interpretations of it. God was merciful, at leas tin his later iterations. There was talk about goodwill towards all and helping your fellow man, and more importantly on good acts. We would all have to pay for our sins come judgement day! Of course Hindus believed in rebirth and that your past sins would come to haunt you in the next life. But in every case, it was the idea of balance in nature that a belief in god and a cosmic order brought about that made man moral. And I come back to the same question. In the absence of that cosmic order, why be moral?
Or to strike even deeper, why define morality like this? Who’s to say what action is moral or immoral? What’s right and what’s wrong? On what basis do you ground your basic ethic? How do you define that basis? How can you defend it? Morality become nothing more than a set of common rules that we agree upon to play fair, and the person who can break those rules without getting caught is the most successful. Which brings me back to square one. I’m tired of thinking in circles and yet I can’t seem to find a way to break free from it.
Of course, no matter how much I want to believe that the existence of god would make some sense out of this chaos, it doesn’t make it real. I forget who said, “If God did not exist, mankind would have found it necessary to create him.” True words, indeed.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
Roots of morality?
Morality. It’s a question I can’t get out of my head. And I don’t mean morality as it’s interpreted today, in terms of sexuality. Who’s having sex with who and how and are they married and what not. That seems to be the only thing morality is concerned with today. Greed, corruption, theft, murder are all bad and condemnable, but show us a sexually ‘immoral’ person and we all get up in a lather. Not I, though. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about all the other immoral things. To cheat, to lie, to wrong, to kill, and so on. And the moral actions too. Altruism, philanthropy, kindness, helping the needy and so on. What is the root behind all this? What stops us from wronging someone? What makes us help others, especially those who can’t return the favour?
Tough questions. I struggle to find the answer. Why should it make us feel good to do the ‘moral thing’? After all, it’s not giving us any tangible benefit. Not cheating at cards, for instance, might lead to me losing the game, and that doesn’t make me happy. Spending my hard-earned money on someone else in charity only means I have less to spend on myself. I’m sure similar emotions would be felt by almost everyone. Then why do we do it?
Some researchers in such fields, socio-anthropologists perhaps, say that it’s a social imperative. Any group where individuals don’t help each other is doomed to fail when competing with a group where they do help each other out. On the face of it, it makes sense. ‘Higher’ animals like primates do show some rudiments of social responsibility more than ‘lower’ animals. Makes sense that a group would prosper if its members were aiding each other. But which individual would be most benefited in such a group? The one who was most ‘moral’ and helped everyone else, or the one who helped only those who were in a position to reciprocate and not others? The latter, of course. He’s conserving his resources and making use of them in the most efficient manner and evolution would reward him. Similarly with humans, the person who cheated just a little bit, enough to benefit himself but not to trouble others too much, or one who could cheat more but slyly enough so as not to get caught would be the most successful. The one who doesn’t give to charity or help those in need would have more for himself. So why do we do it?
I think it’s because of the belief in god. That there is balance in the world. The belief, ingrained in us from childhood, that if we do good it will come back to us. If we help others, we would get it when we needed the same. That there were consequences for our actions. And this belief gave us meaning. “tu bhala kar tera bhala hoga. Aur darvesh ki sada kya hai?”
But take god out of the equation and you have nothing that ensures this balance. Then why would you do right by anyone? Why wouldn’t I cheat at that game of cards, once I was sure I wouldn’t get caught? Why wouldn’t you murder someone if it helped you in anyway? Why would you or I give to charity to help unknown people who couldn’t repay you? Why would Bill Gates set up a charity worth millions instead of spending it all on himself, buying everything on this earth? Why would I teach any hypothetical kids of mine to be moral, do good, help others, be kind? Why would I not tell them to be supremely selfish and do whatever it took to succeed? Why wouldn’t I do it myself?
If the law of averages governs my life events and some good and bad things are going to happen to me irrespective of my actions, I might as well do all the bad I can safely do to maximize my chances of getting as much ‘good’ as I can in life. After all, all my wrongdoings aren’t going to come back and bite me in the ass! Why would you help a person dying on the street? He will almost certainly not be there if ever you are in such a situation! The same principle would apply to every human transaction, every interchange. Greed, selfishness, callousness would characterise our actions. Even the most intellectual people would find it hard to rationalize moral actions on an individual level (how I hope I’m wrong!). No, if there is no doctrine of ‘karma’ that holds true, we might as well do pretty much what we please.
This was one of the major questions I struggled with when I was reading “The God Delusion”. Dawkins, of course quoted extensively from the Bible to make the point that wherever we get or morals from, it’s most certainly not from that book. He might be right. I haven’t read the whole testament, but what I have read, i.e. the first few books up to Job, don’t disprove his claims in anyway.
Tough questions. I struggle to find the answer. Why should it make us feel good to do the ‘moral thing’? After all, it’s not giving us any tangible benefit. Not cheating at cards, for instance, might lead to me losing the game, and that doesn’t make me happy. Spending my hard-earned money on someone else in charity only means I have less to spend on myself. I’m sure similar emotions would be felt by almost everyone. Then why do we do it?
Some researchers in such fields, socio-anthropologists perhaps, say that it’s a social imperative. Any group where individuals don’t help each other is doomed to fail when competing with a group where they do help each other out. On the face of it, it makes sense. ‘Higher’ animals like primates do show some rudiments of social responsibility more than ‘lower’ animals. Makes sense that a group would prosper if its members were aiding each other. But which individual would be most benefited in such a group? The one who was most ‘moral’ and helped everyone else, or the one who helped only those who were in a position to reciprocate and not others? The latter, of course. He’s conserving his resources and making use of them in the most efficient manner and evolution would reward him. Similarly with humans, the person who cheated just a little bit, enough to benefit himself but not to trouble others too much, or one who could cheat more but slyly enough so as not to get caught would be the most successful. The one who doesn’t give to charity or help those in need would have more for himself. So why do we do it?
I think it’s because of the belief in god. That there is balance in the world. The belief, ingrained in us from childhood, that if we do good it will come back to us. If we help others, we would get it when we needed the same. That there were consequences for our actions. And this belief gave us meaning. “tu bhala kar tera bhala hoga. Aur darvesh ki sada kya hai?”
But take god out of the equation and you have nothing that ensures this balance. Then why would you do right by anyone? Why wouldn’t I cheat at that game of cards, once I was sure I wouldn’t get caught? Why wouldn’t you murder someone if it helped you in anyway? Why would you or I give to charity to help unknown people who couldn’t repay you? Why would Bill Gates set up a charity worth millions instead of spending it all on himself, buying everything on this earth? Why would I teach any hypothetical kids of mine to be moral, do good, help others, be kind? Why would I not tell them to be supremely selfish and do whatever it took to succeed? Why wouldn’t I do it myself?
If the law of averages governs my life events and some good and bad things are going to happen to me irrespective of my actions, I might as well do all the bad I can safely do to maximize my chances of getting as much ‘good’ as I can in life. After all, all my wrongdoings aren’t going to come back and bite me in the ass! Why would you help a person dying on the street? He will almost certainly not be there if ever you are in such a situation! The same principle would apply to every human transaction, every interchange. Greed, selfishness, callousness would characterise our actions. Even the most intellectual people would find it hard to rationalize moral actions on an individual level (how I hope I’m wrong!). No, if there is no doctrine of ‘karma’ that holds true, we might as well do pretty much what we please.
This was one of the major questions I struggled with when I was reading “The God Delusion”. Dawkins, of course quoted extensively from the Bible to make the point that wherever we get or morals from, it’s most certainly not from that book. He might be right. I haven’t read the whole testament, but what I have read, i.e. the first few books up to Job, don’t disprove his claims in anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)