I am not about to sound like a sermon, because morality in the sense of this piece of writing shall be spoken of not as a way of life or tenet, but as a notion given to much hypocrisy in today’s day and age. It is fashionable, nowadays, to speak of the idea of morality as preposterously redundant. It is cool to proclaim that logic and reason should dictate personal preferences and public policy, rather than any norms that lay down what is good and what is bad. And I don’t blame the advocates of such a stance because morality is a questionable idea simply because we are always at a loss to settle on one definition of it and each version tends to belong to a particular vested interest.
What I have a problem with are the champions of the anti-moral brigade who are quick to decry any attempts at being told the right thing to do. And I have a problem because they decry morality in the name of freedom. The question posing us is clear. How does one advocate any stance of freedom, while professing amorality (as opposed to immorality)?
Let’s begin at the very beginning. What is morality? It’s that thing that tries to lay down for you right and wrong. It is the thing that tells you what the proper thing to do is. It is that which dictates and suggests the correct way to be, and the improper path to tread. So whenever you advocate anything, are you not being, in your own sense of the word, moral? Let’s not be so cynical (and at worst so hypocritical), as to believe that morality is a bag load of superstition and that the word is equivalent to abuse. When you suggest that the freedom of expression in art should not be restricted in the name of morality and sensibility, then that’s your sensibility.
Perhaps, sensibility was a better notion to debate in this article. But they do all fall under the same category – morality, sensibility and the ‘shoulds’ of each individual. Agreed that the words today have fallen into disuse and that by virtue of their political colour, they must be treated differently from their dictionary meanings. Agreed. But in the light of this argument, we lose the larger picture. That of making morality and sensibility dirty words, when they really aren’t.
What I mean is that the people who say the head scarf is undue modesty, would perhaps not be willing to wear more revealing clothes than jeans, or a knee length skirt or a sleeveless shirt. So, as long as they are drawing the line somewhere, they are displaying their own brand of morality and their own sensibilities. Many of those who oppose censorship say that there must be freedom. They think that free is the right way to be. Isn’t that their own sensibility, then? Those who oppose the welfare state say that equal and free competition is the most appropriate and reasonable way to run societies. That is also moral sense, even though it may not be from a particular religious scripture. One individual’s morality may be positive discrimination, another’s equal opportunity. If abortion offends your sensibilities and your notion of morality, then opposing it may offend someone else’s. Simply put, there are only different kinds of morality and different sensibilities. There is no such thing as ‘amoral’. As long as you think there is a right and a wrong way, you have a morality, and you can’t look down upon the notion.
As a way of disclaimer – these words were not written to make a case for the defence of either censorship, curtailment of freedom, the headscarf, the welfare state or even reservations. They have been about questioning those who go around humbugging the idea of sensibilities and moralities, because they themselves haven’t been able to escape these. The right way, I believe, to go about things, is to put your brand of morality in perspective, question it, redefine it, and refine it. Don’t let your sensibilities stagnate, no matter how right they seem. Explore the grey areas, and make the white colourful. And even as I suggest all this, I have made clear what my sensibility is. Because, really, there is no such thing as ‘amoral’.
No comments:
Post a Comment