http://www.ammaro.com/2008/06/justified-stealing.html
I commented on the above post by Ammar but it lead me to serious thinking about the ramifications of his question. The first thing that springs to mind is that in Eastern philosophy, if you ask a serious question, the first response would be who wants to know, i.e. who is asking. The point is that the answer is framed according to the context or perhaps the identity or intellectual capacity of the inquirer. Does this mean that our morality is flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the moment and that we do not have any absolute morality?
Was Shree Ram morally right when he abandoned his wife Sita, to appease a minority section of his society?
Is it morally correct for a secular state to provide Haj subsidies to its minorities?
What would you call someone who leaves his wife and infant son in the dark of night and shirks from his responsibilities in order to pursue his own agenda? Imagine that this person lived and died as a common mendicant after taking this path. You would perhaps consider his act irresponsible and immoral. Now imagine what your response would be if that person was named Siddhartha and this happened at Kapilvastu a couple of millenia ago?
Is YOUR morality flexible enough to change according to the context? Do you believe in absolutes when it comes to morality? Are we as a culture, so focused on survival that we would compromise on moral issues when it becomes necessary? A lot to think about and raises more questions than it answers.
“Chetanaham Bhikkhave kammam vadami” is what Buddha would say (and has said). Volition behind the act decides the morality of the act. Say you heard “a person was killed because another person put knife to his stomach”. One would naturally think of the knifing as a heinous act and condemn it. But what if you found out it was a doctor who was operating to save a patient and the patient died while being operated on? May all beings be happy and peaceful.
Comment by Anon — June 17, 2008 @ 11:09 pm |
If volition behind the act decides the morality of the act, then you do not believe in absolute morality. The example you have provided is a classic case of semantics, substitute ‘put’ with ’stabbed’ and see what that implies. Should Kunti and Madri be excused of adultery, because it was committed for a noble purpose, to propagate the royal lineage? I would rather prefer the semitic ten commandments which lay down in absolute terms what is acceptable and what is not.
Comment by sagarone — June 18, 2008 @ 4:46 am |
Morality is never absolute. It is a conditioned phenomenon. In the visible/cognizable terms, it is conditioned by society, doctrines, times, customs, accepted conventions and noms, etc. Cutting hands off is a moral sentence in Saudi Arabia and Islamic countries – should it be everywhere else too? And what about polygamy in Islam and Mormon? Is furthering a royal lineage a noble purpose and if yes, for whom – the royals, the other royals who want to divvy up the kingdom, or for the common people? The Semitic 10 commandments rise from “I am Lord thy God and you shall have no other God”. Do you think the crusades, the origins of islam, the Western wars (all of which are related to that) are noble and moral? Semantics are necessary to convey the meaning but they themselves are NOT something to stick to. Be happy and peaceful.
Comment by Anon — June 19, 2008 @ 3:19 pm |