In part one and two we understood that there is no purpose behind the existence. No meaning. No right and wrong in absolute sense. This position is very much like nihilism. We also saw how nihilism is an uncreative way to live. A spiritually developed person would be creative. And to live creatively he would self-assign some purpose to life and live for it, fully taking joy of his short existence as a conscious being.
Now we move on to understanding more about morality.
Part 3
What Is Morality and How It Works?
The purpose which is self-assigned to bring meaning to life is translated into what is called morality. That way, morality is defined by an individual for himself. But for smooth living it has to be generalized. If talked about humanity as a whole, what could be the most logical aim of any living creature capable of thinking? Survival and wellness. Strive for survival and wellness. The conduct that serves this purpose is moral, and vice versa.
As long as the person lives with this purpose he has some morality in him. He who at least looks after survival and wellness of himself is not nihilistic in strict sense. He has some morals. But since the span of his "looking after" is limited to him alone, let’s say his moral standard is low. Basically, the standard which looks after "survival and wellness" of larger group is morally higher. That way there are infinite stages of morality. INFINITE. But to simplify let's break them down into three stages.
Stage 1
Less conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 2 and 3. Minority.
Stage 2
More conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 1. Majority. Hence, the prevalent standard.
Stage 3
More conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 1 and 2. Minority.
Basically there are infinite standards or stages of morality. Higher is the standard which covers the survival and wellness of a larger group of creatures. That way, stage 1 above is lower than the stage 2, which is lower than the stage 3. Important point to be noted here is that no standard is “right or wrong” in absolute sense. Just based on how much is the span of looking after survival and wellbeing at a particular stage it gets a position in the ladder.
Which stage of morality will prevail? The one which represents the beliefs and mindset of the majority of the people in a given sample will prevail. Be the sample a community, region, or a small group of people. The prevalent standard of moral conduct will always remain the one which is considered right by the majority in a given sample.
In the above table, moral standard of people at stage 1 covers the rights (survival and wellbeing) of smaller group, or is less conducive to the purpose of overall survival and wellness than the stage 2 and 3. As against that, the moral standard of the people at the stage 3 is higher than stage 2 that way. There can be infinite number of stages after the stage 3 and before the stage 1 and even in between these three stages. But the majority of the people fall in the broadly defined stage 2, hence that standard prevails.
That means, in a society where the stage 2 is the prevalent standard, everyone (who is at stage 1 actually) can be forced to conform to the stage 2 standard. If not conformed then there is a mechanism in place – laws and punishment. For example, suppose in the stage 2-society urinating in public is considered detrimental to common survival and/or wellness. So, if some person who is of stage 1 level urinates in public place then he will face problems. Also, when I say "prevalent" it doesn't necessarily mean by law. Like, there may not be enforcement of law against urinating in public (in countries like India, for example). But if the prevailing mindset is such that majority of the people consider it wrong then that moral standard would make itself felt through people's behavior towards the one who urinates that way.
Now in the same stage 2-society there are also people who are actually of the level of stage 3 morality. Who think that even pollution is detrimental to common survival and/or wellness. But they won't be listened to, because "the majority" does not consider pollution an issue worth heeding. And thus, this stage 3 standard, though it is higher by covering more span in terms of survival and wellness, can not be forced to conform to because it is held by only a few people.
A terrorist (stage 1) can be forced an external moral standard because he is below the stage of morality which is prevalent (stage 2). That means, more people are aware of and agreed on the morally higher conduct and they desire that conduct to become a standard for common good. But my neighbor can not be forced to abandon his car and use public transport because he is in the prevalent stage (stage 2). So, the prevalent standard can be forced on the lower standards. But the prevalent standard can not be forced to conform to a higher standard.
The reader can apply the model using different and more suitable examples in different societies.
Where does it leave a stage 3 person in a given stage 2-society (that is, where stage 2 is the prevalent standard of morality)? A stage 3 person can live the way he likes, as long as he does not slip blow the prevalent stage. After all, nothing's right or wrong. So, if I don't pollute my surrounding (acting from stage 3), that’s fine. But I should not urinate in public (acting from stage 1). If I pollute my surrounding (acting from the prevalent stage 2) then also it's fine, because at the prevalent moral standard it is not considered objectionable. In any case the guilt feeling should not arise!
You see, as it turns out, morality is not such an important concept that one should go ga ga over it. What is more important is "spiritual development", knowledge of the reality, and the understanding that morality is just something which is invented to keep on providing meaning to life and maintain the order. Whichever is the prevalent moral standard, it doesn't matter in the end. While some stages of morality are higher than the others, within the given moral framework, there's no such moral stage which is THE Moral Standard. There are no moral absolutes.
While morality is certainly important to maintain order in the world and live a sane life, it is also important to understand that enlightenment is beyond morality. An enlightened person lives on the tune of Nature. He doesn't need to know what is moral or immoral.
This concludes the three-part series Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living.
Now we move on to understanding more about morality.
Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living
Part 3
What Is Morality and How It Works?
The purpose which is self-assigned to bring meaning to life is translated into what is called morality. That way, morality is defined by an individual for himself. But for smooth living it has to be generalized. If talked about humanity as a whole, what could be the most logical aim of any living creature capable of thinking? Survival and wellness. Strive for survival and wellness. The conduct that serves this purpose is moral, and vice versa.
As long as the person lives with this purpose he has some morality in him. He who at least looks after survival and wellness of himself is not nihilistic in strict sense. He has some morals. But since the span of his "looking after" is limited to him alone, let’s say his moral standard is low. Basically, the standard which looks after "survival and wellness" of larger group is morally higher. That way there are infinite stages of morality. INFINITE. But to simplify let's break them down into three stages.
Stage 1
Less conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 2 and 3. Minority.
Stage 2
More conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 1. Majority. Hence, the prevalent standard.
Stage 3
More conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 1 and 2. Minority.
Basically there are infinite standards or stages of morality. Higher is the standard which covers the survival and wellness of a larger group of creatures. That way, stage 1 above is lower than the stage 2, which is lower than the stage 3. Important point to be noted here is that no standard is “right or wrong” in absolute sense. Just based on how much is the span of looking after survival and wellbeing at a particular stage it gets a position in the ladder.
Which stage of morality will prevail? The one which represents the beliefs and mindset of the majority of the people in a given sample will prevail. Be the sample a community, region, or a small group of people. The prevalent standard of moral conduct will always remain the one which is considered right by the majority in a given sample.
In the above table, moral standard of people at stage 1 covers the rights (survival and wellbeing) of smaller group, or is less conducive to the purpose of overall survival and wellness than the stage 2 and 3. As against that, the moral standard of the people at the stage 3 is higher than stage 2 that way. There can be infinite number of stages after the stage 3 and before the stage 1 and even in between these three stages. But the majority of the people fall in the broadly defined stage 2, hence that standard prevails.
That means, in a society where the stage 2 is the prevalent standard, everyone (who is at stage 1 actually) can be forced to conform to the stage 2 standard. If not conformed then there is a mechanism in place – laws and punishment. For example, suppose in the stage 2-society urinating in public is considered detrimental to common survival and/or wellness. So, if some person who is of stage 1 level urinates in public place then he will face problems. Also, when I say "prevalent" it doesn't necessarily mean by law. Like, there may not be enforcement of law against urinating in public (in countries like India, for example). But if the prevailing mindset is such that majority of the people consider it wrong then that moral standard would make itself felt through people's behavior towards the one who urinates that way.
Now in the same stage 2-society there are also people who are actually of the level of stage 3 morality. Who think that even pollution is detrimental to common survival and/or wellness. But they won't be listened to, because "the majority" does not consider pollution an issue worth heeding. And thus, this stage 3 standard, though it is higher by covering more span in terms of survival and wellness, can not be forced to conform to because it is held by only a few people.
A terrorist (stage 1) can be forced an external moral standard because he is below the stage of morality which is prevalent (stage 2). That means, more people are aware of and agreed on the morally higher conduct and they desire that conduct to become a standard for common good. But my neighbor can not be forced to abandon his car and use public transport because he is in the prevalent stage (stage 2). So, the prevalent standard can be forced on the lower standards. But the prevalent standard can not be forced to conform to a higher standard.
The reader can apply the model using different and more suitable examples in different societies.
Where does it leave a stage 3 person in a given stage 2-society (that is, where stage 2 is the prevalent standard of morality)? A stage 3 person can live the way he likes, as long as he does not slip blow the prevalent stage. After all, nothing's right or wrong. So, if I don't pollute my surrounding (acting from stage 3), that’s fine. But I should not urinate in public (acting from stage 1). If I pollute my surrounding (acting from the prevalent stage 2) then also it's fine, because at the prevalent moral standard it is not considered objectionable. In any case the guilt feeling should not arise!
You see, as it turns out, morality is not such an important concept that one should go ga ga over it. What is more important is "spiritual development", knowledge of the reality, and the understanding that morality is just something which is invented to keep on providing meaning to life and maintain the order. Whichever is the prevalent moral standard, it doesn't matter in the end. While some stages of morality are higher than the others, within the given moral framework, there's no such moral stage which is THE Moral Standard. There are no moral absolutes.
While morality is certainly important to maintain order in the world and live a sane life, it is also important to understand that enlightenment is beyond morality. An enlightened person lives on the tune of Nature. He doesn't need to know what is moral or immoral.
This concludes the three-part series Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living.
Hi Darshan,
ReplyDeleteThis is a nice summary of a very complex topic. Lately I have been thinking about how reason and morality are related. If one believes the capacity to reason (what you and I both would call a spiritual process, I think) is related to reaching "stage 3" morality, then could you call reason a moral process, or at least an essential element of it? I think so. I've been thinking about an essay on this myself.
Also, thought you would like to know that your posts always generate great conversations for Jim and me. Thanks for that! :)
Kitty
Kitty,
ReplyDeleteYes, our capacity to reason is an essential element of the process of moral development. How else could we understand what is good and bad for the collective wellbeing (and thereby our own long-term wellbeing). Also to be understood is the fact that moral development for a spiritually developed person will not come as an obligation. For the developed person moral development (reaching higher stages of morality) is a part of his endeavor to make his own life more meaningful and wholesome.
Happy to hear that you and Jim discuss on what I write. :)